A charge delivered to the clergy of the Diocese of Exeter, at the triennial visitation in June, July, August, and September, 1842

A CHARGE

DELIVERED

TO THE CLERGY

DIOCESE OF EXETER,

AT THE TRIENNIAL VISITATION

IN JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER, 1842.

HENRY LORD BISHOP OF EXETER.

PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLERGY.

LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.

MDCCCXLII.

LONDON' :

Printed by WILLIAM CLOWES and Soxs
Stamford Street.

o

MATTERS TREATED IN THE CHARGE.

PAOE

I. New Statute of Theological Lectures and Examination

at Oxford ........ 3

II. " Oxford Tracts" . . .5

1. Stimulus to Systematic Piety . . 6

2. The true Christian Life a Corporate Life . 10

3. Necessity and Efficacy of the Sacraments . 18

Baptism . .... 20

The Lord's Supper . .27

4. Tract No. 90 . . . 29

III. Want of Ecclesiastical Synod . . . . 41

IV. Judgment on Appeal — Escott v. Mastin . . .41
V. Church Discipline ....... 74

VI. Increase of Number of Bishops . . . .80

VII. Church Rates ... ... 83

VIII. Associations for Religious Purposes . . .84

IX. Pews in Churches ....... 87

Disclaimer of words respecting the New Poor Law . . 89

APPENDIX.

I. Practical Value of the Rubrics . . . .91

II. Comparison of our Articles and the Decrees of Trent 93
III. Law respecting Church Seats ..... 105

CHARGE,

REVEREND BRETHREN,

IN looking back on the years which have
passed, since we first met on such an occasion as this,
the prevailing sentiment, in the hearts of all of us,
must be that of humble and fervent thankfulness to
our divine Head, who has enabled us not only to
retain the outward form of a National Church, in
spite of all the dangers by which we were at one time
menaced, but also to aspire to a higher and wider
sphere of spiritual action ; while we are cheered and
stimulated in our ministrations by the increased, and
daily increasing, sympathies of the people — by the
calm, intelligent, and active co-operation of many
of the most eminent of all orders of men around
us — and, above all, by the manifest indications of a
general yearning for a deeper and fuller insight into
the way of God's salvation — into the nature, too,
the powers, the privileges, the blessings, of the Holy
Catholic Church, the true ark of deliverance from
the perishing world around us, which His infinite
wisdom and mercy have prepared, " that in the dis
pensation of the fulness of time, he might gather
together in one all things in Christ."

Thank God ! the Church is no longer the watch
word of a party, but is acknowledged to be " the
city of the Lord of Hosts, the city of our God," in

B

which those who use their holy privileges aright
shall be disciplined and fitted for the citizenship of
" the Heavenly Jerusalem."

This improvement and enlargement of the reli
gious views of our people demand from us a pro
portioned elevation of our own views, and increased
care and diligence in our own studies, that we may
be enabled " to bring all such as are committed to
our charge unto that ripeness and perfectness of age
in Christ," to which so many are now, by His
grace, manifestly aspiring. Those among you who
feel, with me, the loss we ourselves suffered from
having been less stimulated by the spirit of the
times, on which the best years of our lives were
cast, will also feel, with me, that this, whether our
fault or our misfortune, does not exempt us from
the general duty of labouring, in humble depend
ence on God's grace, to raise ourselves, as near as
we may, to a level with our increased responsibili
ties ; while the younger members of our body,
" rejoicing," as they well may, but " with trem
bling," at the blessedness of their own better lot,
who have no temptation to idleness or negligence,
in the prevailing temper of the people, will gird
themselves manfully to the studies necessary for
" the doing of so weighty a work, pertaining to the
salvation of man," in an age of unexampled intel
lectual activity — activity applied, through the
mercy of God, not least to the investigation of reli
gious truth, in a spirit of earnestness and zeal,
which it will be the opprobrium of the clergy if
they are unable to meet, to satisfy, and to direct.

I. Happily, the rising generation of theological
students have new and most valuable aids largely

offered to them. Within the last few months, the
University of Oxford, acting on the gracious inti
mations of Her Majesty's purpose to found two new
professorships of sacred literature, and, of its own
liberality, anticipating the time when the royal en
dowment shall take effect, has commenced the pious
work, and provided the means not only of further
instruction, but also of ascertaining the proficiency
of those whom she instructs, in that learning which
shall duly qualify them, by the grace of God, to be
the spiritual instructors of others. The new pro
fessors will commence their lectures as soon as the
University shall again be assembled ; and the exa
mination of those who attend them will not be de
layed beyond eighteen months — it being intended
that certificates shall be given to all who satisfy the
examiners, after an attendance on at least six
courses of lectures, which cannot be completed in
less than an academical year.

The University does not profess to require that
all of her sons, who intend to offer themselves as
candidates for holy orders, shall have recourse to
the assistance which this most useful institution
offers ; but I feel that I should be wanting to my
own duty as a bishop, if I did not seize this earliest
opportunity of announcing, that I shall require from
all candidates of that University, as soon as the new
statute shall be in full activity, the certificates which
it provides. There may be special cases in which
I may see reason to remit the requirement, but such
will be my rule ; and the exceptions will be only
those which very peculiar circumstances shall
justify. Even when exceptions may be admitted,
they will not extend to an admission of a less

B2

amount of qualification, than might be expected to
satisfy the academic examiners ; for I should be
guilty of very culpable remissness, if I should not,
to the utmost, co-operate with the University, in this
its most wisely-conceived as well as laudable endea
vour to elevate the standard of theological attain
ments in the future ministers of our Church. — Simi
lar demands will of course be made from candidates
of the other University, where it is gratifying to
know that an increased measure of theological in
struction has recently been introduced.

I have ventured to pronounce of the scheme, that
it is most wisely conceived ; and confidently do I
anticipate your concurrence in this judgment, when
I state to you what that scheme is. The lectures of
one of the new professors will be directed to pastoral
theology, under which will be comprehended in
struction in the duties of a parish priest — in the
method of composing sermons — in the history of
liturgies, with their rubrics — and matters of a like
kind. The other professor will lecture in ecclesi
astical history, and the writings of the Fathers.*

That extensive attainments in these as well as the
other departments of sacred learning can be made
in so short a period, will be expected by no man ;
but the rudiments may be learned, and a path

* The only objection which presents itself against this measure,
is the expense of an additional year's residence in the University.
This objection is not to be lightly disposed of : let us hope, that
the University may deem it proper to permit such persons, as
intend to pass the theological examination, to offer themselves for
the ordinary examination for the bachelor's degree, at an earlier
period than at present, if they wish it ; and thus to avail themselves
of the benefit of the new measure, with little or no prolongation of
their residence in the University.

opened, in which the diligent and conscientious
student may afterwards safely advance, — " medi
tating upon these things, giving himself to them," as
much as their vast importance demands, " that so,"
like Timothy's, " his profiting may appear to all."

II. Valuable as the measure is in itself, it receives
some accession of value from the time and the place
in which it has been set forth.

The University of Oxford has recently been iden
tified, in the judgment of the inconsiderate, with
the authors of what are commonly called " The
Oxford Tracts." It is well, therefore, that measures
have been taken by the University itself, to teach,
authoritatively, on those important subjects, on
which private members of that body have used the
liberty, which undeniably belonged to them, of
setting forth their sentiments without authority.
The result of the unauthorised teaching has, I fully
believe, been, on the whole, very highly useful to
the cause, not only of sacred learning, but also of
true religion. Whatever may be the clamours with
which these writers are assailed, and while I think
that in some important particulars they have erred
in doctrine — and that in others, both important and
unimportant, they have been injudicious in their re
commendations of practice — I scruple not to repeat
the avowal, which I made to you three years ago, of
my own deep sense of the debt which the Church
owes to them. The candid ecclesiastical historian of
the nineteenth century, whatever else he may say of
these men, will hereafter point to them, as having
most largely contributed, by their own energy,

and by exciting the zeal and energy of others, to
that revival of a spirit of inquiry into the doctrines
of the primitive Fathers, into the constitution of the
Church of Christ, and, generally, into matters of
high importance to the cause of Gospel Truth,
which has spread with a rapidity wholly unexam
pled since the days of Cranmer. But I enlarge not
on these points. He whose station best entitles him
to speak of these writers, their own venerated dio
cesan, has anticipated all other testimony. My
object is, to do an act of simple justice to them, at
whatever hazard of sharing in the obloquy, which
has been heaped not only on them, but on many
who, differing from them in important particulars,
as I have declared myself to differ, do yet, like me,
regard them with respect and gratitude, as good,
and able, and pious men, who have laboured most
earnestly, and, on the whole, very beneficially, in
the service of the Church of Christ.

1. There is one leading particular in their teach
ing, on which, when I warmly commend it, I venture
to assure myself that I shall have the assent of most
among you; I mean the stimulus which they have
given to a life of systematic piety — to a life which
shall, in some measure, realise the requisitions and
copy the examples of those holy men who compiled
our Liturgy, and fenced, and illustrated, and en
forced it with the Rubrics. That Liturgy was pre
pared, those Rubrics were designed, not to regulate
the service of one day only in the week, but of
every day. Whose fault is it, that its use is com
monly so limited ? Is it the fault of our people ?

At least, is it solely theirs ? None of us can truly
and honestly say that it is, till he has tried —
seriously, earnestly, for some considerable time,
tried, and tried in vain — to win his flock to unite
with him in that week-day sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving, for which the Church has so faith
fully provided, especially on all those " Feasts
which the Church hath appointed to be observed."

On this matter, however, I do not pretend to
prescribe to you any rule. It must be left to your
own judgment and your own feeling. But teach
and discipline your feeling ; note well the practice
of which you read in the history of some of the best
and holiest men our Church has ever produced :
note, too, the effect of the same practice in those of
our own day who are known diligently to follow
it. Are they mere formalists ? Are they devoid of
spiritual and vital religion? Above all, try the
practice fairly, devoutly, and in the fear and love of
God : try it yourselves, and note its effect on your
own souls. Mark whether a holy composure, a
pious joy, an increased ability to go through your
other services (I will not call them labours), attend
not the habitual use of these much-depreciated
ordinances.

In country parishes, it may not be easy soon to
gather a congregation. Yet often, even there, the
aged, the infirm, and some of those whose station
exempts them from constant occupation, might be
brought gladly to avail themselves of the more fre
quent ministrations of their pastor, if he shew him
self in earnest in executing his high commission, as
minister of God's word, in conformity to the in
junction of the Church.

8

In pressing this matter upon you, I am not igno
rant that many good men have thought — some, per
haps, of those whom I now address may think —
that the most valuable portion of public worship is
the ordinance of Preaching ; and we are sometimes
told, in a tone of seeming triumph, that the great
work, for which our holy office was appointed, is,
to " preach the Gospel."

From the earliest days of the Reformation there
have been two parties in our Church — each of them
including many sincere and excellent men — who
are, and have been, more strongly distinguished by
their feeling, if not their language, on this particular,
than by almost any other differences whatever.

On which side the voice of the Church has
spoken, I need not say. But let me ask, has not
experience also spoken? and is not its testimony
with the Church ? What are the results, the en
during results, of the most eloquent, the most fer
vent, the most successful preaching, if it be not
kept in due subordination to the immediate and
proper purpose for which the congregation is
assembled in God's house — emphatically called by
God himself " The House of Prayer," — humbly to
acknowledge our sins before God — to render thanks
to Him — to set forth His praise — to hear His holy
word — to ask those things which He knows to be
necessary as well for the body as the soul — above
all, to feed together spiritually on the body and
blood of our blessed Redeemer ?

What, I again ask, are the results, the enduring
results, of the preference of preaching to a service
such as this? Has not experience shewn how little
they can be depended on ?

9

And, after all, what is to preach the Gospel ? Is
it merely the delivery of oral discourses? In pro
claiming the Gospel to the heathen, this may,
indeed, be the best or the only way. But in the
instruction of those who have been already brought,
by God's mercy, into the fold of Christ, can the
same be truly said ? What is catechising ? What
the reading publicly in the congregation the written
Word of God ? What the intelligent and devout
use of our own admirable Liturgy ? Can any ser
mons bear comparison, even as instruments of
Christian instruction, with the wisdom, the per
spicuity, the fulness, the wonderfully proportioned
exhibition of the whole Will of God, which that
blessed book presents ? Of all its praises, this, its
observance of the just analogy of faith, is perhaps
the highest. In it, no one portion of evangelical
truth is unduly exalted above the rest ; no favourite
doctrine can be there detected — nothing sectarian
— nothing that is not Catholic, in its tone, as in its
sense. Only teach your people to know the method,
the system, of the whole book, and the purpose, as
well as the meaning, of every part. Teach them,
in short, to know the riches of the treasure which is
there given into their hands. Shew to them, that it
is not merely a manual of daily devotion, but also an
epitome of a Christian's life : of his life, said I ? — ay,
and of his death. From the font to the grave, it seeks
to shed its enlightening, its chastening, its consoling
influence on all we do and all we suffer.* Be it

* I may be permitted to recommend a selection from the works
of the great divines of the seventeenth century, entitled " Illuslra-
fions of the Liturgy and Ritual, by the Rev. James Brogdcn,"
recently published, as a most valuable addition to every parochial
clergyman's, and indeed to every churchman's, library.

10

your part to teach your people to use it as they
ought ; to pray its prayers ; to " pray with the spi
rit, and to pray with the understanding also."
And then be assured that they will listen even to
the preacher, if not with the same barren wonder
at his fancied talents, or the same brief subjection
of their feelings to his rhetoric, yet with minds and
hearts better fitted to receive, and to retain, whatever
of good they may hear from him.

Before I quit this subject, let me again impress
on you — what three years ago I brought to your
attention — the duty of a faithful observance of the
Rubrics. True it is, that inveterate usage may be
pleaded for the non-observance of some of them.
But of these not all, perhaps not one, may have
been irreclaimably lost. Be it our care to revive
what we may ; but, certainly, not to permit any
others to fall into disuse.*

I was brought to this matter by a wish to do
justice to one especial benefit which has been ren
dered to the Church by the writers of the " Tracts
for the Times."

2. There is another particular, in which they
appear to me equally entitled to our gratitude ; I
mean, the zealous and effectual manner in which they
have enforced the great evangelical truth, that the
true Christian life is not an individual, but a cor
porate life ; that we are, in the highest and strictest

* To the wisdom, which marks our Rubrics, I am glad to give
the testimony of the experience of one of the ablest and most de
voted ministers ever employed in the service of the Church in
India, Archdeacon Robinson. — See A pp. I.

11

moral sense, members of a Body, whose Head is
our Lord Himself, and therefore we are " members
one of another." Our Lord's own discourses, and
the teaching of the Holy Ghost by the Apostles,
plainly declare that it is to the body of Christ, and
to every particular man as a member of that body,
that his precious promises of grace and life are held
out : " The Lord added to the Church daily such as
should be saved."

I do not say — God forbid I ever should — that no
blessing attends personal, individual religion — that
the Spirit of Grace is never present except when
the congregation are met together in the Lord's
name — that " the prayer of Faith," breathed from
one single heart, is, or can be, without effect —
that the soul is never blessed, largely blessed, by
holy communion with God, even in the stillness of
the closet, in the loneliness of the dungeon, or in
the yet more perfect desolation of the faithful
Christian in the crowd of infidels or worldlings.
But this I say, that even then he, the faithful
Christian, will regard himself as a member of the
body — will long for communion with it. I also say,
that the great appointed instruments of grace, the
holy Sacraments, of which we know that they are
" generally necessary to salvation "-—those to which
is annexed the promise of the highest and most
perfect union with Christ, so far as they are the
acts of man, are essentially corporate acts — acts of
the Church, prescribed as such by its divine Head.

" Great " indeed, " great " throughout, " is the
mystery of godliness ;" but the greatest of all its
mysteries is the first particular enumerated by the
Apostle — "God manifest in the flesh"-— Emmanuel

—God in us ; eternally uniting manhood to himself,
and thus becoming to us " the second Adam," from
whom, and through whom, and in whom, our true,
our spiritual life wholly subsists.

The Word of God is plain and full in teaching
this great truth, though it shrouds in awful ob
scurity the particulars contained within it. " I am
the vine, ye are the branches : he that abideth in
me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much
fruit." * Again : " Ye are the body of Christ, and
members in particular." f " We are members of
His body." We are " of His flesh and of His
bones" \. Again: "He is the head, even Christ,
from whom the whole body, fitly joined together,
and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
according to the effectual working in the measure
of every part, maketh increase of the body to the
edifying of itself in love."§

In another place, we are said to be " built upon
the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner stone : in
whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth
unto a holy temple in the Lord : in whom ye also are
builded together for an habitation of God through
the Spirit." j|

These various but accordant images are not used
in metaphor, but symbolically. They are expressions
which, while they cannot be conceived to describe
the manner, do yet declare the truth, the reality,
the closeness of the union of Christ with his Church.
They forbid us to regard ourselves, if we would be
in Christ, as separate individuals. They tell us,

* John xv. 5. f 1 Cor. xii. 27. J Eph. v. 30.

§ Id. iv. 16. || Id. ii. 22.

13

with Hooker, that " in Him we actually are, by our
actual incorporation into that society which hath
Him for its head, and doth make together with him
one body ; for which cause, by virtue of that mys
tical conjunction, we are of Him, and in Him, even
as though our very flesh and bones should be made
continuate with His."*

The " life " of this mystical body " is," indeed,
" hid with Christ in God ;"f yet the body itself is
visible here on earth, in the doctrine which Christ
delivered to it, in the Sacraments which he insti
tuted, in the " pastors and teachers, whom He gave,
for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the
Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ,
till" the number of the elect shall be accomplished,
and the Church attain its appointed growth ; and
so " we all come in the unity of the Faith, and of
the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect
man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness
of Christ." J

Meanwhile, can we doubt what is the duty of
every Christian towards the particular Church, in
which God's rnercy has assigned his lot ? To adhere
to it with all thankfulness and meekness, " to obey
them which have the rule over him, and submit
himself," § " esteeming them very highly in love for
their work's sake;"|| to " love the brotherhood, "^[
to hold communion in all acts of worship, above all,
in that the highest of all, the Holy Supper of the
Lord, which is the very golden cord of unity, bind
ing together in one the whole Body of Christ on
earth ; " for we, being many, are one bread and

* Ecc. Pol. v. § 56. t Col. iii. 3. J Eph. iv. 1 1—13.
§ Heb. xiii. 17. || 1 Thess. v. 13. f 1 Pet. ii. 17.

14

one body ; for we are all partakers of that one
bread."* Can schism, in short, be a light evil, or a
venial sin ? Can it be safe for us to permit, much
less to teach, our people to believe it such ?

No ; let us rather remind them what was the
prayer, the last, the most earnest prayer, which our
Lord himself poured forth for his Church just before
he was delivered to his murderers — that prayer was
for the unity of His Church : " Neither pray I for
these alone, but for them also which shall believe in
me through their word, that they all may be one ; as
Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they
may be one in Us, that the world may know that
Thou hast sent me. And the glory which Thou
gavest me I have given them, that they may be one,
even as We are one : I in them, and Thou in me,
that they may be made perfect in one"

See how vast, how inconceivably vast, is the
value of unity in the Church. He, who is Truth
itself, annexes to it, as its necessary result, the con
viction and conversion of the world — the gathering
of the nations into the fold of Christ. It is not
union that He prays for, the union of independent
men or bodies, consenting to differ on what things
they choose, in order that they may act peaceably
together in others. It is not union, I repeat, that
our Lord prays for from the Father, but UNITY; such
unity as is of the Father and the Son ; such unity
as shall make us " perfect in one."

To that we must aspire — be the prospect of success

what it may — to that we must aspire, if we would

fulfil the will and obey the voice of Christ, nay,

if we have faith in Him. Those who separate from

* 1 Cor. x. 17.

15

the Church we may, we ought to, love as brethren,
to entreat as brethren, though they have left the
common Father's house. But we may not, we dare
not, deceive them, by keeping back the awful truth,
that by ceasing to be in that house they cease to
have the promise, which is given to them only, who
are there : " Son, thou art ever with me, and all
that I have is thine." From our hearts will we
add, over every wanderer who shall return thither,
" It is meet that we should make merry, and be
glad ; for this our brother was dead, and is alive
again, and was lost, and is found."

The writers of the " Tracts" have largely con
tributed — not to revive, for it was never dead, but
to spread and strengthen, a practical sense of this
our corporate character, as we are Christians; to
exhibit the Church not, as we grieve to be told by
high authority that it is, merely a " convenient"*

* It has been said that we have the example of our Lord him
self for this " convenient " use of the word " Church ;" and the
text referred to is Matt. xvi. 18 : "I say also unto thee, thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it." " Tlie Church," to which
our Lord makes this promise, conceived in terms so solemn, is, we
are told, a mere " convenient" expression "to embody the multi
tude who believe in Christ under one comprehensive term." The
writer proceeds as follows : — " When Jesus declared that he would
build his Church upon a rock, and that the gates of hell should
not prevail against it, he simply declared that there should here
after ever be a body of men believing in Him as the Son of God—
a body which Satan might assail, but should never succeed in
destroying. He did not say that he would set up a power upon
earth which should possess his authority, act in his stead, and, as
his vicegerent, dispense his anger or his favour." And yet in the
very same sentence our Lord says, what the writer, when he de
livered this comment, did not think himself called upon to notice,
" And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven :

10

phrase for " embodying the multitude who believe
in Christ under one comprehensive term," but as

and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven,
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
Heaven."

As little does he think it necessary to notice another passage of
Holy Writ which we have been accustomed to interpret as con
ferring some " authority of Christ's — as empowering to act," in
some measure, " in his stead, and, as his vicegerent, dispense his
anger or his favour." I refer to John xx. 21 — 23 : " Then said
Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you : as my Father hath sent
me, even so send I you. And, when he had said this, he breathed
on them, arid saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose
soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

Now, if these words do not confer Christ's authority, what do
they confer ? Or, if it be said that their scope and efficacy ex
tended not beyond the persons of the Apostles, what did our Lord
mean by his solemn declaration that he " would be with them
always, even to the end of the world ?"

Again, what does the Archbishop mean, when he says, at the
consecration of a Bishop, " Receive the Holy Ghost for the office
and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto
thee by the imposition of our hands ; in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" ? Does he give the Holy
Ghost by his own authority, or by Christ's, " acting in his stead" ?

Or, lastly, when a Bishop, at the ordination of a Priest, not only
professes to give the Holy Ghost, in the very same form, " for the
office and work of a Priest in the Church of God," but adds,
moreover, " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained," — what
and whose authority does he give ? Is the Priest to forgive or
retain sins of his own authority, or by " the authority of Christ,
acting in his stead, and as his vicegerent dispensing his anger or
his favour" ?

It is not without great reluctance that I have referred to these
unhappy passages; but I have been compelled to do so. The
work in which they occur has been produced to me by one of my
own clergy as an authority, if not a justification, for statements
which I felt it necessary to censure as unsound.

The same writer says, that " one of the first and most needful

17

the designation of that body, of which Jesus Christ
himself is, in some mysterious yet most true and

works of the Reformers was to divest the Church of the mystery in
which it was shrouded, and to disclose it to the world in its true
and scriptural form as the company of believers."

If the Reformers did this, they did what they were not wont to
do — they set themselves in direct opposition to St. Paul. For this
Apostle, after quoting from Gen. ii. 21 — 24, in which is narrated
the formation of Eve out of Adam's side, says, " This is a great
mystery ; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church." In
other words, herein is mystically signified the forming of the
Church out of the side of Christ. For, as " God caused a deep
sleep to fall upon Adam, and he took one of his ribs," and made it
to be woman, the mother of us all naturally ; so out of the side
of Christ, when, being delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, he was crucified and slain, the Church,
the mother of us all spiritually, was formed. The Apostle seems
to have implied this in his reference, however brief, to the forma
tion of Eve ; for he refers to it as a type of the Church.

And here we can hardly fail to bear in mind that part of
the history of our Lord's death which St. John narrates as
especially worthy of our admiration, that " one of the soldiers with
a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and
water" — the two Sacraments, St. Augustine * tells us, by one of
which the Church receives its first being, by the other its proper
sustenance. But, be this as it may, the Apostle manifestly speaks
of the Church as being really and truly, however mystically, the
body of Christ; " for we are members of his body," we are " of
his flesh and of his bones :" these words seem to have been added
in order to exclude the notion of a bare figure, or metaphor ; and
he expressly declares " This is a great mystery ;" which, there
fore, we shall do well to contemplate, as such, with awe and
thankfulness, not seeking, with this author, " to divest the Church
of that mystery, in which " the word of God, not uninspired man,

" has

* De latere in cruce pendentis, lancea percusso, Sacramenta
Ecclesise profluxerunt. Aug. in Johan. Tract. 15, c. 8. Our own
Church, in the office of Baptism, seems to imply the same : " Al
mighty, ever living God, whose most dearly beloved Son Jesus
Christ, for the forgiveness of our sins, did shed out of his most
precious side both water and blood," &c.

C

18

perfect manner, the head. " The visible Church"
is not a mere multitude ; it is the " ccetus fideUum"
— " a congregation of faithful men in which the
pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments
are duly administered." Such is the description of
the Church in our 19th Article ; agreeably to the
description of it given in the Word of God. " They
that gladly received the Word" of Peter, bidding
them to " save themselves from this untoward ge-

O

neration," the world, " were baptized," " and they
continued steadfastly in the teaching of the Apos
tles, and in the fellowship, and in the breaking of
the bread (manifestly the Bread of the Eucharist),
and in the prayers"* — manifestly the common pray
ers of the body. For earnestly impressing this
truth, and others connected with it, and the con
sequences resulting from them, the writers of whom
I speak appear to me to merit the grateful acknow
ledgment of true Churchmen, in proportion to the
contumely which has been, in some quarters, most
unsparingly showered upon them.

3. In like manner, they have successfully laboured
to impress the necessity and efficacy of the Sacra
ments, as the appointed means, in and by which

" has shrouded it." " MvcrTi'ipiov in S. S. dicitur quicquid (reli-
giosum scilicet) eet obscurum et latet ; nee sine revelatione divina
percipi potest. Matrimonium Adami et Evse mysterium dicitur,
quia typus fuit matrimonii Christi cum Ecclesia ; et eductio Evse
ex latere Adoe dormientis reprsesentabat eductionem et creationem
Ecclesiae ex latere Christi in cruce mortui." — Pol. Syn. in loc.

* rr\ 2tOa^jy TUV aTroaroAwv, ecu rrj KOlVUvlty K'ai TJJ K'Xaerct r»
upra, KUI rate 7rpo(7£u^a7c. Act. ii. 40-42.

19

God is pleased to impart the vital and saving grace
of Christ. For this, also, I feel it my duty, once
more, publicly to tender to them such thanks as it
is in my power to give ; and I do so the more earn
estly, because for this, too, they have been publicly
attacked by men of learning and piety, who, in their
zeal for a favourite theory, seem to have forgotten
not only the claims of charity, and even justice, but
also some portion of their creed, as well as of the
Articles, to which they have solemnly and re
peatedly subscribed.

The same writer * whom I have just cited, one

* He thus characterizes the two Sacraments of the Gospel : —
" Christ instituted his sacraments, that they who observed them
might be a visible body of witnesses to him in the world ; and
that, after the usual manner of the divine operations, there might
be known and manifest channels, in which his spirit might flow,
to the edification and comfort of believers."

It is not often, that, in any moderate space, so many contradic
tions of the doctrine of the Church are made, as are here crowded
together, in a single sentence, by this eminent and excellent man —
betrayed into it, doubtless, by his zeal to protect the truth from
what he deemed the dangerous misstatements of others.

1. The Church says of a Sacrament, that it is different in kind
from other outward rites, or inward communications of divine
grace, inasmuch as it is "an outward and visible sign of" some
special operation of the Holy Spirit within us — in other words, of
" an inward and spiritual grace given unto us."

The writer says, there is nothing special in it, so far as God is
concerned. It is only " after the usual manner of the divine ope
rations."

2. The Church says that a Sacrament is " ordained by Christ
himself, as a means whereby we receive" the grace so given to us
by the Holy Spirit, and as " a pledge to assure us that we receive
it thereby."

The writer says, that it was instituted by Christ, not that any
special grace should be thereby given or received, or any pledge
of our receiving it, but merely that, " after the usual manner of

20

whose virtues and services to the Church must al
ways entitle him to our affectionate respect, how
much soever we may be compelled to differ from
him, has not scrupled to insist, that in " speaking
of justification by faith" we may not say that
"Baptism concurs towards our justification:"
adding, that, in his judgment, no consistent mem
ber of the Church of England can hold such
an opinion; although every time he recites the
Niccne Creed he " acknowledges one Baptism for
the remission of sins ;" although the 27th Article
affirms, that " by Baptism the promises of for-

the divine operations, there might be a known and manifest chan
nel, in which His Spirit might flow."

3. The Churcli says of one of the two Sacraments, that " by it,"
not only " those who receive it rightly are, as by an instrument,
grafted into the Church," but to them " the promises of the for
giveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the
Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed."

The writer says, that there is nothing in it, differing from " the
usual manner of the divine operations :" it is nothing more than
" a known and manifest channel, in which the Holy Spirit may
flow," without any special promise of any special blessing annexed
to it.

4. The Church says of the other Sacrament, that it is "an out
ward sign of the" wondrous "spiritual grace, thereby given and
received," " our redemption by Christ's death."

The writer says, it is only " after the usual manner of the divine
operations, a known and manifest channel, in which God's Spirit
may flow."

5. The Church says of the same Sacrament, that in it " the
Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and re
ceived by the faithful."

The writer says, that there is nothing in it, beyond " the usual
manner of the divine operations."

6. The Church says of the two Sacraments, that they are "ge
nerally necessary to salvation."

The writer says, that they are instituted only " to the edification
and comfort of believers."

21

giveness of sins, and of our adoption to be sons
of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and
sealed, faith is confirmed, and grace increased;"
although, too, the Homily of Salvation, which is
declared in the llth Article to express the doctrine
of our Church on Justification, uses the word bap
tized as synonymous with justified ;* and although
the Homily " of Common Prayer and Sacraments"
— one of those of which he has again and again
acknowledged that they " contain a godly and
wholesome doctrine" — states " the exact significa
tion of a Sacrament" to be " a visible sign, where -
unto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness
of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in
Christ." Of which description it says, " there be
but two, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord."f

* " You have heard the office of God in our justification ; now
you shall hear the office and duty of man unto God. Our office is,
not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly, after
that we are baptized or justified." — Homily of Salvation, Partiii.

t The Homily ascribes so much importance to this its state
ment of " the exact signification of a Sacrament," that it thus pro
ceeds to test by it two other of the Romish Sacraments, which
might seem to have the best pretension to the name : " For,
although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin, yet, by
the express word of the New Testament, it hath not this promise
annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands.
For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly
commanded in the New Testament to be used in absolution, as
the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord's Supper are : and there
fore Absolution is no such Sacrament as Baptism and the Com
munion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath this
visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of
sin, as all other Sacraments besides the two above-named do.
Therefore neither it, nor any other Sacrament else, be such Sacra
ments as Baptism and the Communion are. But, in a general
acception, the name of a Sacrament may be attributed to anything
whereby an holy thing is signified."

22

And, in respect to the other Sacrament, another
writer, whose work has been much applauded, enu
merating a series of " fearful errors," which lie lays
to the charge of the Tractarians, numbers among
them the doctrine (not only of " the real presence,"
explained as they have explained it, but also) of
" the communication of our Saviour's Body and
Blood in the Lord's Supper ; " seemingly forgetting
that these words are a transcript from an Epistle of
St. Paul. *

While the Sacraments are thus unhappily depre
ciated by good men of our own day, it is refreshing
to look back to the fathers of our reformed Church,
and to listen to their sounder teaching. Let me,
then, contrast with what I have just cited from our
contemporaries, Hooker's brief, but pregnant, decla
rations on this subject. " Sacraments," says he,
" are those visible signs which, in the exercise of
religion, God requireth every man to receive, as
tokens of that saving grace which Himself thereby
bestoweth." Again, after describing " Grace, as
the word of God teacheth," first, " His favour and
undeserved mercy towards us ;" secondly, " The
bestowing of His Holy Spirit, which inwardly
worketh;" thirdly, "The effects of that Spirit
whatsoever, but especially saving virtues, such as
are faith, charity, and hope ;" lastly, " The free and
full remission of all our sins :" — he immediately
subjoins, " This is the Grace which Sacraments
yield, and whereby we are all justified" f In another
place he says, with express reference to those who
would so hold the doctrine of justification by faith

* 1 Cor. x. 16.

t Hooker, B. v. App. p. 552 ; Keble's 2nd Edition.

23

only, as to derogate from the dignity and worth of
Sacraments, " The old Valentinians held that the
work of our restoration must needs belong unto

knowledge only They draw very near

unto this error who, fixing their minds on the
necessity of faith, imagine that nothing but faith
is necessary for the attainment of all grace. Yet
is it a branch of belief, that Sacraments are,
in their place, no less required than belief it
self." *

Such is the doctrine of one who is, by common
consent, recognised as u the judicious Hooker," in
strict accordance with the articles and homilies of
our Church. Such, too, is the doctrine of a no less
illustrious luminary of the next century, Isaac
Barrow. He says, " The benefits which God sig
nifies in Baptism, and (upon due terms) engageth
to confer on us, are these : first, The purgation or
absolution of us from the guilt of past offences by a
free and full remission of them — his freely justify
ing us."^

Be such our teaching. Sacraments, in the fullest
and truest sense, are not merely acts of men — acts

* Hooker, Ecc. Pol., v. 60. It is a curious coincidence, that
Socinus symbolizes very strikingly with ultra-Protestants, in his
doctrine of baptism : for thus he writes : —

" Vel Baptismo illi, hoc est, solemniter peractce ablutioni, pec-
catorum Remissionem nequaquam tribuit Potrus (Act. ii. 38), sed
totam Poenitentise : vel, si Baptism! quoque ea in re rationem
habuit, aut quatenus publicam nominis Jcsu Christi professionem,
earn tantummodo consideravit ; aut si ipsius etiam externre ablu-
tionis omnino rationem habere voluit, quod ad ipsam attinet, re-
missionis peccatorum nomine, non ipsam remissionem vere, sed
remissionisdeclarationcm, etobsiynntionem quandam intellexit." —
Socinus dc Baptismo.

t Barrow, Doctrine of Sacraments, 521.

24

of worship — sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving ;
they are all these, but they are far more, far higher,
than all these. Their great, their distinctive cha
racteristic is, that they are God's acts — applications
of God to man — His means, His instruments, of
giving to us that oneness with Christ, by which we
are saved, and wherein we stand. Until we teach
our people thus to think and feel of the Sacraments,
we shall have left one main part of our office, as
stewards of the mysteries of God, miserably neg
lected. Until they shall thus think of these mys
teries, they will not think of us, as it is far more
for their benefit, than for ours, that they should
always think. But when they shall be so taught,
that teaching will be more effectual in winning
them back from the wanderings of dissent and
schism, or in keeping them within the true fold,
than all the arguments which the wit of man can
devise. This is no secret to those who, while we
slept, intruded into our folds, and have laboured
too successfully in estranging our flocks. They
keep the Sacraments wholly out of sight ; or treat
them as mere ceremonies,* sometimes as Popish
ceremonies. For they are " wise in their gene
ration." They know well that, if their hearers once
believe that the Sacraments are God's special means
of conferring saving grace, they must demand, To

* I grieve to see the same writer, to whom I have before re
ferred, give (unintentionally, I doubt not) too much countenance
to this representation of Sacraments, by his own alteration of the
Church's description of " The visible Church," which he states
to be that " congregation of faithful men," in all ages and coun
tries, who maintain in their purity the doctrines and institutions
of the Gospel. " The ministers of this Church are those called to
serve the united body; to perform the prescribed rites" &c.

25

whom is it that God has given commission and
power to minister them ?

And here I would again press upon you, but now
more earnestly than before,* from the considerations
I have just adduced, the duty of administering the
Sacrament of Baptism, as the Rubric requires, be
fore the congregation at the appointed time, after
the second lesson.

You may say that your congregations will be
impatient of such an addition to the Morning or
Evening Prayer. If they be, you cannot need a
stronger proof of the need they have of special
instruction on this main point, the nature and the
blessing of Christian Baptism. Depend upon it,
that they who are impatient of the performance of
that holy office, are miserably deficient either in
Christian knowledge or in Christian feeling, or, too
probably, in both. For if they understand the
office, they must value it as a pregnant manual of
Evangelic doctrine ; they must, too, rejoice to bear
their part in it, as one of the most delightful of
Christian privileges. For, what portion of divine
worship can delight a Christian, if he be cold, much
more if he be impatient, in witnessing the infant
sons and daughters of those around him rescued
from spiritual death, born again, made members of
Christ, children of God, heirs of everlasting sal
vation ?

The truth is, and, as we do not meet for the
purpose of complimenting each other, you will
bear with me while I declare it — our sad neglect in
enforcing the vast importance of Baptism has been
the cause of the carelessness of our people on this

* At my visitation in 1836.

26

particular, and of the tremendous consequences of
that carelessness. In the course of my present
visitation, I have found that in many parishes, espe
cially in Cornwall, the number of Baptisms has
frightfully diminished. This has been ascribed to
the operation of the new Registration Act ; and 1
do not doubt, that such may have been, in many
instances, the proximate cause. But has it been
the prime, the most potential cause ? I fear not ; I
believe not. I rather fear, I rather believe, that we
have to reproach ourselves for suffering the people
to fall into ignorance, and therefore into indif
ference, in respect to this first duty of Christian
parents. Were it not so, they would not, they could
not, yield to the miserable temptation afforded by a
Register-office, to prevent them from entitling their
children, under the blessing of God, to be recorded
in the Book of Life. For, as the Church tells us,
" It is certain by God's word that children, which
are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin,
are undoubtedly saved."*

Let me encourage your exertions in this most
important particular, by communicating the fruits
of the zeal and industry of one of your own body.
On succeeding to the charge of a populous parish,
chiefly of miners, he found a lamentable and grow
ing deficiency in the parochial register of the
baptized. What did he? Was he satisfied with
complaining of the Registration Act ? No ; he set
himself to work in earnest, explaining to his people
what the blessing is, of which they were thus rob
bing their children. He preached on it to those
who would attend his preaching ; he talked on it

* Rubric at the end of " Public Baptism of Infants."

27

to those who would hear him in their houses ; he
wrote and dispersed judicious tracts upon it, among
those who neither heard him at church, nor could
be visited by him at home. And what was the
result ? At first, what I should advise you all, in
such a case, to expect and to disregard — opposition,
ay, furious opposition — abuse, contumely, anony
mous letters, tracts far more numerous than his
own. But, before the year was over, some scores
of children, whose baptism had been superseded by
registration, were brought to the font, in his own
and an adjoining parish, into which the agitation
had spread. His congregations largely and steadily
increased, the number of his communicants was
multiplied threefold, of candidates for confirmation
more than fourfold : his ministry was honoured,
his person respected, even offers of money were
voluntarily made to help to enlarge his church
and erect a chapel of ease, — and all this by the
very persons who, a few months before, had been
the loudest in crying out against him.

But it is not merely to an increased earnestness
in setting before your people the nature and ines
timable benefit of Baptism that I would invite you ;
I must also press the necessity of increased fre
quency of opportunities of receiving the other Sa
crament in the churches of most among you.

One communion in every month is the very
least, which ought to satisfy any faithful pastor of
the smallest parish.

You will say, perhaps, that, even now, it is some
times difficult, in such parishes, to retain a sufficient

28

portion of your congregation to receive the blessed
Sacrament. But depend upon it, the number of
communicants will increase with the number of
opportunities, if you both enforce the duty and
teach them the blessedness of their communicating.
Remind them of the awful warning of our Lord
himself, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
And join to that warning, as He in mercy joined,
his wondrous promise, " Whoso eateth my flesh,
and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will
raise him up at the last day." Tell them, that
whether there be, or be not, other ways of receiving
that precious food — " the living bread which came
down from Heaven," " the Bread of Life" — this
blessed Sacrament is the way, the only way, speci
fied by our Lord himself. Tell them, whatever be
the clamour with which such teaching is assailed,
whatever be the names — Papists, or whatever else —
by which you may be called — tell them the truth,
as declared by Christ, and preached by St. Paul,
and as you have yourselves solemnly engaged to
preach : tell them, without " reserve," that " the
bread and wine which the Lord hath commanded to
be received " is the outward sign of " the body and
blood of Christ, which " (we know not how, for God
hath not seen fit to show us how} " are verily and
indeed taken and received by the faithful in the
Lord's Supper." That "the bread, there broken,,^-
the communion to us of the body ; the cup of bless
ing, which is there blessed, is the communion of
the blood, of Christ :" that " we thereby are made
one with Christ, and Christ with us," and so are
blessed with all the benefits which flow from that

29

wondrous union. Make them know, experimentally
know, that such is the heavenly blessing of that
Sacrament ; a sour Article teacheth, it is "a Sacra
ment of our Redemption by Christ's death," to all
who receive it in penitence, in faith, in thankful
ness, in charity.

Make them also know (not experimentally know,
God forbid !) what it is to " eat and drink unwor
thily ;" that it is to eat the sacramental bread and
drink the wine, " not discerning the Lord's body,"
not considering that it is not common bread and
wine which is there offered, but "the Body and
Blood of Christ ;" and that they who do eat with
out discerning this, eat and drink damnation to
themselves. Soften not the word, as some men
venture to soften it, as I have myself heard it
softened, and have been compelled openly to cor
rect him who softened it. The Church hath, in
the Liturgy, given its own interpretation of St.
Paul's word — an interpretation which, the more
closely the passage be considered, will, I think, be
deemed the more certainly to be sound. But I
speak not of my own sense of the passage ; I
solemnly remind you of the sense which the Church
has put upon it.

4. On this matter of the Sacraments, I am thank
ful to the writers of the Tracts for the stimulus
which they have given to us : and with the ex
pression of this feeling I would gladly close what
I have to say of them. But so great and general
an excitement has prevailed respecting one of them
— the last of the series — that I might seem to

30

shrink from avowing my opinion of it, if I were
altogether silent. Yet to speak at all of a produc
tion, whose matter is so multifarious, will render it
necessary to go rather more into detail, than may
well accord with this occasion, after so much which
has been already, and still remains to be, said. Bear
with me, however, I entreat you, while I trespass
a little on your patience, in consideration of the
demand which the public voice seems to have made
on the bishops, for their judgment on a Tract, which
has excited a wider and deeper interest, than any
other within our remembrance.

That it is the last of the series, is itself a matter
of much satisfaction, for, undoubtedly, these Tracts
were creating an unwholesome agitation — an agita
tion, which was driving the writers into excesses, of
which, perhaps, in the full extent, they were them
selves unconscious; and, at the same time, were
producing the usual effect of all extreme courses —
the generating of equal excesses, on the part of
others, in an opposite direction.

That it is the last, is also, on another account,
both satisfactory and worthy of much praise. The
discontinuance of these publications proves that,
with the writers, a deference to Church authority
is more than an empty name. It is not with their
lips, or with their pens alone, that they have set
forth the duty of frank and ingenuous submission
to the judgment of their bishop. A single request
from him, founded on his view of what was best
for the peace of the Church, sufficed to silence
them.

But here commendation from me must cease.
The tone of the Tract, as it respects our own

31

Church, is offensive and indecent ; as it regards the
Reformation and our Reformers, absurd, as well as
incongruous and unjust. Its principles of inter
preting our Articles I cannot but deem most un
sound ; the reasoning with which it supports its
principles, sophistical ; the averments on which it
founds its reasoning, at variance with recorded facts.
Having thought it right to avow this opinion,
it is my duty to state the grounds on which I have
formed it.

1. On the first particular, indeed, the language
of the Tract respecting our Church, it cannot be
necessary to say much. Does it become a son of
that Church — a minister at its altar — a pious and
faithful minister, as I fully believe him to be — one
who has been wont to set forth in high terms the
duty of reverence for the Church in general — does
it become such a man to jeer at the particular
Church in which God's providence has placed him
— to tell her to " sit still — to work in chains — to
submit to her imperfections as a punishment — to go
on teaching with the stammering lips of ambiguous
formularies, and inconsistent precedents, and prin
ciples but partially developed?"*

2. Or, again, is it consistent, I will not say with
decent respect for the memory of confessors and the
blood of martyrs, but with due thankfulness to
Almighty God, for enabling our forefathers to rescue
this Church and nation from the usurped dominion,
the idolatrous worship, the corrupt and corrupting
practices, to which they had been so long enthralled
—is it, I ask, consistent with a due sense of that

inestimable benefit — is it even in accordance with

* Tracts for the Times, No. 90, Introduction.

32

the dictates of common sense, to urge as a reason
for an inert and sluggish acquiescence in prevailing
corruptions (manifestly pointing at our own Re
formation) — that " religious changes, to be bene
ficial, should be the act of the whole body ; they
are worth little if they are the mere act of a ma
jority ? No good can come of any change which is
not heartfelt — a development of feelings springing
up freely and calmly within the bosom of the whole
body itself." When did the Church witness any
such reformation ? How, without a miracle, could
it be accomplished ? Was the planting of the Gos
pel itself, that greatest of " religious changes," thus
peaceably and quietly accomplished ?

" Moreover, a change in theological teaching in
volves either the commission or the confession of
sin : it is either the profession or renunciation of
erroneous doctrine; and if it does not succeed in
proving the fact of past guilt, it, ipso facto, implies
present."

Surely, the same plea might be urged against all
change of life and manners. But it is idle to argue
against statements which were not designed for
argument, but for scoffing. Let me only ask with
what grace can this writer reprobate all " changes,
good in themselves, which are the fruits, not of the
quiet conviction of all, but of the agitation, &c., of
a few?" What have he and his coadjutors been
doing during the last seven years ? Have they been
backward in promoting " a change in theological
teaching" ? Have they waited for " a development
of feelings springing up freely and calmly within
the bosom of the whole body itself" ?

3. But it is time to look at the principles of inter-

33

preting the Articles, which it seems to be the chief
aim of the tract to establish and carry out. The
first of them is thus set forth by the author himself
in the professed explanation of his own views :—
" Whereas it is usual at this day to make the par
ticular belief of the writers of the Articles their true
interpretation ; I would make the belief of the Ca
tholic Church such" Again, " I would say, the
Articles are received not in the sense of their
framers, but (as far as the wording will admit, or any
ambiguity requires it) in the one Catholic sense."*

I am not aware of having before heard of that
principle of interpreting the Articles, which he says
is usual, namely, " the belief of the writers of the
Articles," though that belief may be admitted as an
aid in explaining terms or propositions which are
not in themselves plain : I would rather say that
the usual, as well as the only sound, principle of
interpreting them, is to understand them in the
sense in which he, who subscribes, has sufficient
reason to know that they are understood by the
authority, which imposes the subscription — in other
words, by the legislature, both the civil and the
ecclesiastical legislature ; for both have alike im
posed it. The civil legislature, indeed, or parlia
ment, we may well believe, has intended that they
be understood in the sense of the ecclesiastical or
Convocation ; and, as no different sense has been
put upon them by any subsequent parliament or
convocation (though both have subsequently renewed
the requisition of Subscription), we may fairly look
back to the sense of the Convocation of 1571, which
must have been the sense of Parliament in the same
* Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 24.

D

34

year, when both legislatures, for the first time, im
posed the duty of Subscription.

Now the Convocation of that year, in the very
canon * which imposed subscription to the Articles,
tells us what is the sense which they were designed
to bear, namely, the Catholic sense ; for, as it there
enjoins "preachers to teach nothing to be religiously
holden or believed but what is agreeable to the
doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and has
been collected out of the same by the Catholic
fathers and ancient bishops," it must be considered
as following its own rule in putting forth a book of
Articles " for the establishing of consent touching-
true religion ;" and it is as a security for the observ
ance of this rule, that subscription to the Articles is
required, " which Articles," it proceeds to say,
" have been collected out of Scripture, and agree
in all points with the heavenly doctrine therein
contained."

If this statement asserts the very principle pro
pounded in the tract, namely, that the Articles are
to be understood in the Catholic sense, it will,
nevertheless, be found on consideration to be utterly
irreconcilable with the application of that principle,
as contended for in the tract : for it is there main
tained, that any man will satisfy the duty incurred
in subscribing the Articles, if he assents to them,
not in their plain, and obvious, and grammatical
sense, but in that sense which he, of his own mere
opinion, shall determine to be " Catholic ;" whereas
the canon shows that the plain, and obvious, and
grammatical, is also the Catholic sense ; and the
preacher or minister who shall adopt any other
* " Concionatores."

35

sense, as the Catholic, does, in truth, prefer his own
private judgment on the point to the declared judg
ment of the Church synodically assembled — a pro
cedure as uncatholic and schismatical as can be
well imagined.

I might insist on other objections to their prin
ciple, but they have been so ably urged, especially
by Dr. Elrington, Regius Professor of Divinity in
the University of Dublin, that I content myself
with referring you to what he has said.

4. I turn therefore to another, and practically
the most mischievous, of the principles set forth in
the tract.

It is there held, that " our Articles were not
directed against the Decrees of Trent, because they
were written before those Decrees ;" — that " the
Decrees, in their mere letter, do not express that
authoritative teaching of Rome which is condemned
by the Articles ; — that senses short of this doctrine
will fulfil the letter of the Decrees ; — and that the
censures contained in the Articles have a sufficient
object, though the Decrees of Trent, taken by them
selves, remain untouched."

All this, and much more to the same effect, is
manifestly designed to show that there is nothing
in our Articles inconsistent with the letter of the
Decrees of Trent; — that those Decrees, and the
Articles, may be held together by the same person.

As this is by far the most daring attempt ever yet
made by a minister of the Church of England to
neutralize the distinctive doctrines of our Church,
and to make us symbolize with Rome, I shall be
excused if I detain you for a few minutes in un-

D 2

36

ravelling the web of sophistry, which has been
laboriously woven to cover it.

It rests mainly, as has been said, on the allega
tion, that the Articles were of a date anterior to the
Decrees of Trent — an allegation, having just that
measure of truth which will enable it most effectually
to deceive.

In the Statutes and Canons, the Articles are
described as " Articles agreed upon in the Con
vocation holden at London in the year 1562:"
whereas the Council of Trent did not hold its last
Session, nor put forth its last Decree, till December
in 1563.

This is the face of facts and dates most favourable
to the assertion in the Tract.

Now let us see to what it really amounts. The
Convocation of 156*2 is so called according to the
Old Style. It commenced its sittings in the month
of January of the year which would now be called
1563 ; and it continued to sit till the month of June,
just six months before the conclusion of the Council
of Trent. In the course of those six months how
many Decrees were made by the Council on the
points condemned in our Articles ? One, only one ;
including, indeed, all the matter dealt with in the
22nd Article; an article, it must be admitted, relating
to several important particulars. Such is the amount
of all that can be honestly stated in favour of the
writer's allegation ; but even this would give a very
inadequate view of the weakness of his case. For,
although the Articles, having been in the main
settled by the Convocation of 1562, are always
designated as the Articles of that Synod, yet

37

they were not then permanently and finally con
cluded.

The Convocation of 1571 reconsidered them,
with a view to a final settlement, and made alter
ations in them (of no great moment indeed) before
it authorised their publication in English; — and,
what is more important, before it made the Canon
requiring Subscription. It was to the Articles so
corrected, not as they were left by the Synod of
1562, that the Statute of 13 Elizabeth requires
Subscription ; for it expressly specifies " the Book
of Articles put forth by the, Queen s authority" —
which was true of the English Book of 1571 only.

Subsequently, on the accession of King James,
because towards the close of the preceding reign
Subscription to the Articles had been made by
many, with such limitations or qualifications as
materially affected its value, as a Test of Unity of
Doctrine ; — the Synod holden at London in 1603
(after " having, upon a publique readinge and
deliberate considerasion of the said Articles, will
ingly and with one accorde consented and sub
scribed ") provided by its 36th Canon a more
precise and stringent formula by which every one
who subscribes, professes to believe " all and every
of the Articles to be agreeable to the Word of God"

Here then we might leave the case, apparently
without a shadow of pretence for the allegation,
that, " whereas the Articles were written* before

* And yet, I fear that in the word written (not the most
obvious, nor the most proper, to be used on such an occasion, if
no ulterior object were in view) a miserable shift has been pro
vided ; I fear that it may be intended to say, that the Articles,
though not adopted in Synod till 1562, were, in the main, written

38

the Decrees of Trent, they were not directed against
those Decrees."

ten years before ; for they were drawn up by Cranmer, and first
submitted to a Synod in 1552. This is true; but, instead of
aiding the writer's argument, it will be found, when duly con
sidered, absolutely fatal to it : for it will prove, that the Ar
ticles, as they now stand, have, and always had, especial reference
to the doctrine of Trent.

What might be thought of Cranmer's Articles, if they had been
adopted in their original form, is not the question : they were
altered in several particulars by the Convocation of 1562, and the
principal alterations were manifestly designed to strengthen their
opposition to the Decrees of that Council. For instance, the 5th
Article of 1552, entitled " The Doctrine of Scripture is sufficient to
Salvation," deals with this point only; it declares not what is
meant by " Holy Scripture." But the 6th Article of 1562 and
1571, having the very same title, distinguishes " the Canonical
Books, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church,"
from the others, " which it doth not apply to establish Doctrine;"
enumerating the Books of each class, in direct opposition to the
Tridentine Catalogue.

Again, the 26th Article of 1552, " Of the Sacraments," speaks
of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, not saying a word on the
other Romish Sacraments. But the 25th of the Articles, as they
now stand, having the same title, directly attacks the Tridentine
enumeration of seven Sacraments of the new Law ; denying, that
five of them are Sacraments of the Gospel, or have the same
nature of Sacraments, as Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

Again, the Articles of 1552, " Of Free Will," and " Of the
Justification of Man," were enlarged in those of 1562, with an
especial eye to the language of the Decrees of Trent, and in
opposition to them.

One of the Articles of 1562, that " Of both kinds," was wholly
new, and directed against a Decree of Trent which had been
made only a few months before.

But even Cranmer's Articles, those of 1552, though, in the
particulars which I have just stated, they are less pointedly, or
less fully, directed against the Tridentine Doctrine, do yet mani
festly apply to it. For it is a great mistake to suppose, that even
these " Articles were written before the Decrees of Trent." So
far is it otherwise, that of the Decrees, almost all which relate to
particulars condemned in our Articles, were made before the end

39

But if this be so, the other and much more im
portant allegation, that the Decrees, taken by them
selves, in their mere letter, do not express the
Romish doctrine, which our Articles condemn —
and, consequently, that subscription to the Articles
is not incompatible with adherence to the Decrees,
loses, at once, its best support. And thus perhaps
we might be excused from more minute examina
tion of it. Still, it cannot be an useless labour to
show the utter want of all foundation whatever for
so dangerous a position. For, as I hardly need to
say, whether true or false, it involves the whole
question between us and Rome. Those Decrees
combine, avowedly combine, the whole system of
Romish Doctrine, peculiarly so called. They com
pose the Shibboleth of Rome. The Creed of
Pius IV., formed upon them, and little else than a
brief epitome of them (appended to the Creed of the
Catholic Church, in defiance of the Canons of the
General Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon), is
required to be explicitly held and maintained not
only by every Romish Pastor, but also by every
convert who is received into communion with
Rome. Too much care, therefore, cannot be used,
in warning every member of our own Church, es
pecially, I may be allowed to say, after recent
unhappy experience, the younger of our Clergy,

of 1551, and before the suspension of the Sessions of the Council
(which suspension lasted from 1552 to 1562). The only excep
tions are the Decrees "On Communion in both kinds;" " On
the Sacrifice of the Mass;" and " On Purgatory, Indulgences,"
&c. Of these the two former, though after the renewal of the
Council's Sessions, were made before the Synod of London in
1562-3.

40

against all approach to so fearful and unhallowed a
conjunction.*

I have done with the Tract. Let me only add,
that I wish and hope the intention of the writer, as
declared by himself, may protect him from the seve
rity of censure which the Tract itself deserves. He
wrote it, he tells us, " to do all he could to keep
members of our Church from straggling in the di
rection of Rome :" f and he accounts for the sensa
tion it has excited, by saying that " what was ad
dressed to one set of persons has been used and
commented upon by another." He adds, that
" consciousness how strongly he had pledged him
self in other writings against Rome, made him quite
unsuspicious of the possibility of any sort of mis
understanding arising out of his statements in it."

Be it so. Let him have all the benefit to which
this explanation, and still more his high character,
may entitle him. But let it not be thought in
vidious, if I say, that, as the policy pursued in his
Tract is most discordant with the principles, and
happily with the practice, of our Church, it cannot
be matter of surprise, that the adverse feeling pro
voked by it has more than neutralized, in many dis
passionate minds, the high estimation of him which
former services had justly acquired.

And now, as the publication of the Tracts has
ceased, let us hope that the excitement caused by
them may cease also ; that the Church may peace-

* In Appendix II. is an attempt to show the impossibility of re
conciling our Articles to the letter of the Decrees of Trent.
t Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 27.

41

ably benefit by the testimony to its own principles
which has been ably borne in some of them — free
from the errors which characterise others — free, too,
from the extravagances, the puerile but most mis
chievous extravagances, which have in some places
marked the practice of their disciples. It is grati
fying to believe, that in this diocese the favour,
with which many of the clergy have regarded these
publications, has not been, in any one instance, thus
disgraced.

While the recent excitement was at its height,
loud calls were made on the bishops, from many
quarters, for their formal and united judgment on
the doctrine of the Tracts. Whether the occasion
demanded such a judgment from us, or not, it is a
sufficient reason for our not having given it, that
we have not legally the power to meet for such a
purpose.

But this, in conjunction with many other con
siderations, forces upon us the question, whether it
is right — whether it is consistent with (I will not
say the honour, but) the uses, the safety, the consti
tution, of an unmutilated branch of the Catholic
Church, to be kept without the means of synodical
action. I say without the means ; for, while we
are systematically restrained from using the means
which in theory we possess, we are as much with
out them, as a maniac in a strait waistcoat is
without his arms.

Whether the conduct of either House of Convo
cation, a hundred and thirty years ago, justified or
required the temporary suspension of its sittings, is

42

a question of history, into which we need not enter.
But, be that question answered or not, there is
another, in which we are too much interested, to
decline answering it. Does the conduct of Convo
cation, at that time, justify or excuse the closing of
its doors for ever to everything but the idlest form
alities ? I should as soon say, that the usurpations
of the Long Parliament would have justified subse
quent Sovereigns, if they could do without Par
liaments, in never calling another. Unluckily, the
temporal government can do without convocations,
since they have relinquished the invidious power of
taxing the clergy ; and, therefore, these assemblies
have fallen into desuetude and almost oblivion.
But let us be just. This is not the fault of the
Government, but of the Church. Can any one of
us doubt, that, if at any period after the original
causes of jealousy had ceased to operate, the Church
had represented to the Government the necessity of
its meeting in Synod, from time to time, for some
of the most important of its sacred functions — can
we, I say, doubt, that, if the Church had thus dis
charged its duty to itself, and, I will venture to add,
to its Divine Head, long before this time the ban
must have been taken off? Above all, can we doubt
that, if such a representation were addressed to the
throne of this realm — while it it filled as, we thank
God, it now is — it would meet the most gracious
and favourable reception ?

In saying this, I am confident that I am not out
stepping the course prescribed by the occasion.
The periodical meetings of the clergy are, in these
days of improved Church feeling and intelligence,
regarded with deep interest by the laity, who are

43

(as I am sure you will join me in saying) the great
body of the Church. Whatever, on these occasions,
is delivered from such a chair, as that which I here
occupy, is sure of receiving more than the attention
intrinsically due to it, from veneration for the office,
however unworthily filled. The laity, then, have a
right to hear from their bishops, what they feel to
be the wants and necessities of the Church. In
numbering the want of synodal meetings as one of
the most crying, I am not speaking on my own soli
tary judgment. It is a want, which, for generation
after generation, and year after year, the best
friends of the Church have not ceased, with grow
ing urgency, to deplore. It is now four or five
years, since the Archbishop of Dublin (I speak it to
his honour) zealously and ably pressed the matter
on the attention of the House of Lords. Other very
high authorities supported his view, and not a voice
was heard against it. Have things since that time
changed their nature ? Is that no longer a want,
which was then by all unreservedly admitted ? Has
experience since shewn, that the deliberations of the
Church, on concerns which specially interest it, are
unnecessary ? Would the legislation, which has
taken place on such matters, have been worse — at
any rate would it have been less satisfactory — if it
had been prepared in some such council, as must
have deliberated upon them, in any Church, which,
being entire in constitution, is also free in action ?

It is said, indeed, that Convocation is not such a
body, as is suited to synodal proceedings; that it
was not originally constituted for a synod ; and that
the progress of time had developed sources of very
grave mischiefs inherent in its constitution. — If so,

44

it may be altered, and brought nearer to the model
of the primitive Church, with such modifications, as
the existing state of things may demand. Surely, it
must be as safe to trust Convocation with the task
of reforming its own constitution, as it has been
found to trust other bodies in a similar work ; and,
be it remembered, that the supremacy of the Crown,
dutifully acknowledged by our Church even in its
Articles, would be at all times ready, to prevent
or repress the mischiefs, which might arise from
any exorbitant or unwise proceedings of such a
body.

One of the immediate benefits resulting from this
measure would probably be, to better adapt the
Canons of the Church to our present condition ; and
thus to enable the ecclesiastical courts to administer
the ecclesiastical law more beneficially to all who
have recourse to them.

Again : such a synod might perhaps be permitted,
if not to devise a more satisfactory tribunal of ap
peal, than now exists, in all Causes involving ques
tions of the doctrine of the Church ; at least, to
supply to such a tribunal some better means, than
it now possesses, of knowing what that doctrine is.
As the matter now stands, the Judicial Committee
of Privy Council, consisting of laymen (very learned,
indeed, but in another faculty), is the court of ul
timate resort, on questions of doctrine, which must
often arise in ecclesiastical Causes — even on those,
on which the Church not only hitherto has been
silent, but also is not allowed an opportunity of
pronouncing. In such cases, these lay judges are

45

obliged to pick their course as they can, through
ways which they often find very rough and very
tangled.

True it is, that by a recent law it is enacted, that
in every appeal to this court, in a cause of criminal
proceeding against a clergyman below the rank of
bishop, some one archbishop, or bishop, being a
member of the Privy Council, must be present as a
member of the committee, when the appeal is heard ;
but in all other Causes — for instance, in a charge of
heresy against a layman, or even against a bishop —
the court has not the assistance of a solitary bishop.

Am I very wrong in thinking, that the constitu
tion of such a court, for such a purpose, does not
bear the stamp of absolute wisdom ? — that it may
admit of some improvement ? Am I even wrong
in suggesting, that, in this particular at least, the
much-despised wisdom of our ancestors will bear
comparison with this, one of the latest products of
modern legislation ?

When Henry VIII. rescued the imperial crown
of England from its long and disgraceful thraldom
to Rome, the most important of all his measures
was the Statute of Appeals* — that great law, which
defines and describes the constitution of this realm
more expressly and more closely, than any other
act in the statute-book. In vindicating the inhe
rent right of the Crown " to render and yield
justice, and final determination, to all manner of folk
within this realm," it says, that, " when any Cause
of the law divine happened to come in question, or
of spiritual learning, " that part of the said body
politic, called the Spiritualty, always hath been

* 24 Hen. VIII.

46

reputed, and also found — both for knowledge, in
tegrity, and sufficiency of number — meet of itself,
without the intermeddling of any exterior persons,
to declare and determine all such doubts, and to
administer all such offices and duties, as to their
rooms spiritual do appertain."

It therefore limited the cognizance of spiritual
matters to spiritual persons, giving to the arch
bishops jurisdiction in the last resort.

In the following year, as the growing jealousy of
Rome made the legislature distrust the bishops and
clergy, the ultimate cognizance of all such Causes
was given to the king, as supreme head of the
Church, to be exercised by commission, without any
limitation of persons for the royal choice. But
though, at a time when the clergy were generally
suspected of a secret affection to the papal authority,
it might have been advisable thus to leave to the
king a power of appointing delegates out of the
temporalty, yet, in fact, as Gibson* assures us,
there are no footsteps of any of the nobility or com
mon-law judges being appointed till the year 1604
(seventy years after the erecting of the court) ; nor
from that time are they found in above one com
mission in forty, till the year 1639, when all eccle
siastical, especially episcopal, authority began to be
coritumeliously struck at. Still, even in the begin
ning of the last century, when Gibson compiled his
codex., the number of lay judges bore only a fair and
wise proportion to the spiritual. The proportion,
however, gradually increased ; till at length it seems
to have been regarded as useless, to observe even
the semblance of consideration of the spiritualty in
* Gibson's Codex, Int. Disc. xxii.

47

adjudicating on appeal in spiritual Causes. In 1833,
the Judicial Committee of Privy Council was made
the court of ultimate appeal in all such Causes, of
which court not a single spiritual person was con
stituted a member.

In a Cause, which has recently excited more than
ordinary interest throughout the land, by reason of
the great theological and spiritual questions which
were mixed up in it, final Judgment was given by
an ex-Lord Chancellor, an ex-Lord Chief Justice of
the Court of Common Pleas, a Puisne Judge of the
same court, and the Judge of the High Court of
Admiralty — four men of high character and very
high attainments, but not exactly such, as any one
man in the realm would have selected, to ventilate
the questions, which they, whether necessarily or
unnecessarily, connected with the point they had
to decide.

Of that Judgment, you will not suspect me of any
inclination to speak with disrespect ; for it does, in
truth, confirm and sanction the view, which I have
been in the habit of stating to those among you,
who have, from time to time, applied to me for a
solution of their doubts, in respect to the burial of
infants baptized by Wesleyans. But the extraneous
matters, on which the learned judges thought fit to
put forth their opinions, are of too grave importance
to the Church, to be carelessly heard, or lightly
passed over : and this alone is a sufficient reason for
a bishop saying something on them to his clergy.
Moreover, I apprehend, that the effect of the
Judgment itself is commonly very much miscon
ceived ; and therefore it is desirable, that you should
be informed, what it really is. It amounted to no

48

more than this, that " a minister may not refuse to
bury with the office of the Church, the corpse of
an infant baptised by a layman"

As the court stated, "nothing turned upon any
suggestion of heresy or schism ; the alleged dis
qualification was the want of holy orders in the
person ministering."

Now, this consideration must very much miti
gate any alarm, which the Judgment, before it was
understood, may have excited within the Church —
as well as abate somewhat of the tone of triumph,
with which it is said to have been hailed out of the
Church. In the case decided, the deceased infant
had been baptized by a Wesleyan teacher ; of whom
it was not said, in the allegation of the defendant,
that he was either heretic or schismatic. Of course,
therefore, the court regarded him as neither one
nor the other. Had schism been pleaded, as affect
ing the efficacy of the baptism, the court must
have noticed it. Whether such a plea would have
altered the Judgment, it would be presumptuous
in me to conjecture. It is enough to say, that
the Judgment left this very important point just
where it was. It only decided, I repeat, that a
minister is bound to bury an infant, who had been
baptized by a layman. It did not so much as decide,
that he is bound to bury an adult, who, having
been so baptized, had never sought to have the
deficiencies of his baptism duly supplied. This
point would still remain undecided, even though
the layman administering baptism, without au
thority, were himself a member of the Church.

But much graver questions remain. What is the
effect of Baptism administered out of the Church,

49

that is, by heretics or schismatics? Though suffi
cient to render rebaptization unlawful, does it con
fer all that Baptism in the Church confers ? I
speak not now of the spiritual grace of that blessed
Sacrament, though much, very much, here presses
on our thoughts ; but I speak not now of this most
interesting point — it is somewhat foreign to our
subject, which is confined to external privileges.
Does the Baptism of adults by heretics or schisma
tics give to the baptized — does such Baptism even
of in/ants give to them, when the age of infancy
shall be past, admission into the Catholic Church,
a title to its communion, participation in its privi
leges ? If it does not, what is necessary to supply
its deficiencies ?

These are questions which must, I apprehend,
be seriously considered, and satisfactorily answered,
before any sober judge will venture to decide, that
a minister is bound to use the office of burial over
the body of one baptized by a heretic or a schis
matic, who shall have continued to live, and died,
an adult out of communion with the Church.
Yet the possibility of any such questions seems
scarcely to have presented itself to either of the
two courts, which pronounced the Judgment in the
late case. If it had, they must have abstained from
using words, somewhat larger than the occasion
called for; words, which may mislead the unwary
into a belief, that they have decided questions, which
do, in truth, remain untouched ; in particular, they
would not have intimated, that, if unlawful Baptism is
valid so far as to make rebaptization unlawful, it is
fully and completely valid to all effects whatever.
But as such a conclusion can be drawn only from

E

50

their reasoning, not from the Judgment, it is fairly
open to controversy. I, therefore, scruple not to
affirm, that, should such ever be the decision of any
court, it will be contrary (I do not say to the
ecclesiastical law of this land, for of that it would
be presumptuous in me to speak thus confidently,
but) to the uniform doctrine of the primitive
fathers, to the decrees of councils, to the whole
stream of authorities respecting the effect of here
tical and schismatical Baptism, including the most
eminent of those writers, on whom both courts re
lied for the soundness of their own dicta on this
point.

I will mention only one, but one who, in such a
matter, is instar omnium — I mean the incomparably
learned Bingham. I refer to him the more readily,
because he has never been esteemed too high a
churchman. — He is cited both by the learned Judge
of the Arches, and by the Court above, as an autho
rity for the validity of unlawful Baptism. And,
without all doubt, he asserts its validity. But does
he assert its sufficiency ? So far from it, that, al
though he was one of those who in the great con
troversy, which took place a hundred and thirty
years ago — that very controversy, to which both
courts referred as of much importance to their
reasoning — though Bingham was among those who
then maintained the validity of schismatical Bap
tism against Lawrence, Brett, Waterland, and
others, yet he admitted, or rather he shewed, by a
most elaborate research into the history of all ages
of the Church, that such Baptism, though valid so
far as to preclude rebaptization, had yet very great
deficiencies ; that it gives not spiritual grace, nor

51

remission of sins ; nay, that it does not give (what
is more to our immediate purpose) actual admis
sion into the Church, nor an actual right to Church
privileges ; though it gives a right to claim admis
sion into the Church, and to its privileges, on sub
mitting to the due course for having its deficiencies
supplied, — which was by imposition of hands, and
invocation of the Holy Spirit, upon repentance,
and return to the Catholic Church. He further
says, " The rules and the practice of the Church
of England for these last two hundred years" (he
wrote a hundred and thirty years ago) " are clear :
no rule was made that such as were not baptized
by a lawful minister should be rebaptized ; but
they were required to receive the bishop's con
firmation, and then were admitted to the Eucharist
and the privilege of Christian burial, neither of
which were allowed to unbaptized persons." *

When such is the language of the highest au
thority which can be produced, I think I shall
not be going too far, in saying that the point really
decided has left the pretensions of heretics and
schismatics to confer, by their baptism, a right of

* Schol. Hist. Lay Baptism, P. II. Ep. Ded. oct. p. cxlvii. I
include these last words in my citation, lest I be accused of keeping
hack something which may sound, at first hearing, unfavourable to
rny argument. They have, in truth, nothing to do with it; having
been introduced by Bingham in confirmation of his own judgment,
on the other part of the question, the validity of Schismatical
Baptism. His reasoning is, that imposition of hands in the
Church being held to be both necessary, and sufficient, to supply
the deficiencies of such Baptism, and to admit to the Eucharist, and
to Christian Burial, to which unbaptized persons could not be ad
mitted, it is plain that persons who have received such Baptism
are not unbaptized.

E2

52

burial by the ministers of the Church, very ques
tionable at the utmost, if indeed questionable.

True it is, that the Court of Arches did pro
pound, and in very decided terms, an opinion the
very contrary to this conclusion of Bmgham's. It
said, " Nothing can be more clear, from the whole
history of the Church, from its very early ages, or
at least from the time when St. Augustine flourished
in the fourth and fifth centuries, down to the time
of the Reformation, and from that time down to the
year 1712, than that the baptism of persons who
were baptized by any person, other than a lawful
minister, was considered to be valid and suffi
cient."* — This is strong language: we might have
supposed that the last word had dropped per in-
curiam, had it not been immediately repeated once
and again, in such a manner, as to shew that it was
used purposely and advisedly: for thus the Court
proceeds, " And if it was valid and sufficient at that
time, it is equally valid and sufficient now."

Here, then, we have the Court and our great
ecclesiastical antiquarian diametrically opposed to
each other, on a matter peculiarly belonging to the
learning of the latter. In such a case, we should
not be deemed deficient in due respect to the Court,
if we rather deferred to the authority of Bingham ;
even though it were left a question merely of au
thority. But the Court has not left it entirely thus.
It has cited St. Augustine, and the Conference at
Lambeth in 1712, in testimony of the accuracy of
its own statement.

I will meet its statement respecting St. Augustine

* Curteis'8 Report, Mastin v. Escott, 275.

53

with a citation from that Father, even where he is
speaking as favourably as possible of unlawful
Baptism: " Nequaquam dubitarem habere eos Bap-
tismum, qui ubicumque et a quibuscunque illud
verbis evangelicis consecratum, sine sua simulatione,
et cum aliqua fide accepissent : quanquam eis ad
salutem spiritualem non prodesset, si caritate caruis-
sent, qua Catholicce insercntur Ecclesice"

Now this shews undeniably, that Baptism by un
lawful ministers is not, in the judgment of St. Au
gustine, sufficient, of itself, either to confer spiritual
grace, or to insert into the Catholic Church. It
also shews that, even in his time, it was a question
of great doubt, whether such Baptism was indeed
so far valid, that it ought not to be repeated. He
says, that the question had not been so decided by
the Church; but that, if he were present in any
council, in which it were considered, such would be
his judgment.

So much for St. Augustine, the early authority
of the Court of Arches for its opinion, that " Bap
tism by any person other than a lawful minister
was considered," not only " valid," but also " suffi
cient"

I will now look to its modern authority for the
same statement, the Conference at Lambeth of
1712. That Conference put forth a declaration,
signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and many
of the Bishops, " That, in conformity with the judg
ments and practice of the Catholic Church, and of
the Church of England in particular, such persons
as have been already baptized in or with water, in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ought
not to be baptized again"

54

Such is the Declaration of 17P2— on the face of it,
very far short of the statement of the Court of
Arches. It declares that Baptism, however unlaw
fully ministered, is valid, so that it ought not to be
repeated ; but it says not one word about its suffi
ciency. Have we any evidence to shew the judg
ment of this same Conference on this latter point,
the sufficiency of unlawful Baptism ? Yes, a most
undeniable one, which I proceed to adduce.

Bingham, only two years after the Conference,
published the second part of his " Scholastical History
of Lay Baptism," and dedicated it to Trelawney,
Bishop of Winchester. In the Epistle Dedicatory
we read the following passage : —

" Your Lordship did not so much as know what
subject I was upon, till it was finished ; nor did I
perfectly know your Lordship's sentiments upon the
point, till you were pleased to honour me with a
letter of thanks for my book, and tell me that you
exceedingly approved of it ; and particularly that
part of it, which treats of the deficiency of heretical
and schismatical baptisms, and of the obligation
those, who are so baptized, lie under to return to
the" unity of the Church, in order to have the defects
of their baptism supplied by imposition of hands in
Confirmation ; which was the usual way of sup
plying such defects, according to the general rule
and practice of the ancient Church. Your Lordship
was pleased also to acquaint me, with what I did
not understand before, that all the Bishops of both
provinces were unanimously of the same opinion
which I had defended, and thought there were other
ways of supplying a faulty baptism, than by re-
baptization, if given in due form by a layman : and

55

though your Lordship did not consent to subscribe
the resolution, which was then intended to be drawn
up, yet it was not because you dissented from them
in the main of the determination, but because you
thought it more proper to have added the words,
' in cases of necessity ;' which are cases less liable
to exception, whose deficiency, whatever it be, may
most certainly be rectified by Confirmation."*

So much for the statement of the Court of Arches
respecting the judgment of the Conference of 1712,
that " Baptism by other than a lawful minister is
both valid and sufficient"

The higher Court, while it speaks with great
respect of the judgment of that Conference, states it,
however, to be " chiefly valuable, as bearing tes
timony to the fact, that the construction of the Ru
brics of 1603 and 1661 was acted upon ; which con
struction assumed no change to have taken place in
the former law, the common law of all Christendom
before the Reformation ; a law which was recognised
by the statutes of Edward and Elizabeth, and which
nothing but express enactment could abrogate. "f

This, therefore, is the law, on which the Court
founds its Judgment.

Let us see what it states this law to be : " The
Statutes of Edward VI. and Elizabeth," it says,
" recognised the right of every person to burial
with the Church Service ; " not even excepting
excommunicates.

Now, with unfeigned reluctance, which nothing
but a sense of duty could overcome, I humbly sub-

* Bingham, Part II. Schol. Hist. Lay Bapt. Ep. Ded., p. cxlvii.
oct.

t Judgment — Escott against Mastin, p. 14.

56

mit, that those Statutes do not recognise that power
which the Court here affirms ; and for this plain
reason, that " the former law — the common law of
all Christendom, before the Reformation" — in other
words, the Canon Law, which, in this particular,
was everywhere received, and, especially, in this
country, was the very contrary to what the Court
represents it to have been. Instead of giving to
"every person a right to burial with the Church
Service," it expressly forbade such burial of any
who died not in the communion, and in the Peace of
the Church : " Quibus non communicamus vivis,
nee mortuis communicamus." It went further ; it
commands, that, if the bodies of any of these had
been so buried, they should be disinterred, and cast
out of the Church burial-ground. Nay, it pro
nounced excommunication ipso facto against every
one, who, in contempt of the keys of the Church,
should dare to bury persons of this sort in Churches
or cemeteries.*

Having thus stated what I believe to be really
the canon law on this subject — adopted in England,

* Extra 1. 3, t. 28, c. 12. " Sacris est Canonibus institutum,
ut quibus non communicavimus vivis, non communicemus de-
functis, et ut careant Ecclesiastica Sepultura, qui prius erant ab
Ecclesiastica Unitate praecisi, nee nisi in articulo mortis Ecclesiae
reconciliati fuerint. Unde, si contingat interdura, quod vel Ex-
communicatorum corpora, per violentiam aliquorum, vel alio casu,
in Csemeterio tumulentur, si ab aliorum corporibus discerni po-
terunt, exhuraari debent, et procul ab Ecclesiastica Sepultura
jactari."

Winch. 296 b. Pursuant to the second part of this law, there
is, in Archbishop Winchelsey's Register, an express order " to dig
up an excommunicate, who had been buried in the churchyard." —
Gibson, 450.

And no historical fact is more certain than that the bones of
Wicliff were judicially disinterred and cast out.

07

and therefore part of our common law — I turn again
to the Court's statement of the right which, " by the
common law of all Christendom before the Reforma
tion, and recognised by the statutes of Edward VI.
and Elizabeth," every person, not excepting excom
municates, had in 1603, when the canon was made,
— a right to burial with the service of the Church.
If there could otherwise be a doubt whether this be
the Court's meaning, that doubt is removed by what
it afterwards says of " the Rubric of 1661, which
forbad the burial service in cases of suicide, excom
municates, and persons unbaptized. A right for
merly existing was thus taken away, at least in
some cases ;" * the cases therein specified.

Now, in the face of the Court's dictum on this
subject (fortunately, it was no more than a dictmn),
I venture to repeat my denial, that the statutes to
which it refers, the 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 1, and 5 and
6 Edw. VI. c. 1, and 1 Eliz. c. 2, and 8 Eliz. c. 1,
recognise any such universal right ; and for the rea
son which I have already given, that those statutes
say nothing in derogation, much less in abrogation,
of the received canon law, which, as the Court says,
was " the common law of all Christendom."

But I must go further ; I must contend that the
statute law of England, in 1603, did itself forbid the

O ' *

burial service of the Church to be performed over
the corpse of an excommunicate.

I refer to a statute of Elizabeth, which the Court
did not think it necessary to notice, though by its
very title it might seem to invite notice in such an
inquiry ; I mean the 13th Elizabeth, c. 12, entitled
" An Act for Ministers to be of sound Religion "
* Judgment — Escott v. Mastin, p. 8.

58

— the statute, which established the " Articles of
Religion of the Church of England ;" and which,
because it established them, is made by the Act of
Union with Scotland to be an essential part of the
Treaty of Union, and a fundamental law of the land.

Now of these Articles, thus made to be so especial
a part of our statute law, the 33d, entitled, " Of Ex
communicate Persons, how they are to be avoided,"
runs as follows : " That person, which by open de
nunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the
unity of the Church and excommunicate, ought to
be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as
an heathen and publican." Unless, therefore, a
heathen is entitled to burial with the service of the
Church, which no one yet has had the hardihood
to affirm, neither is an excommunicate.

So much for the law, common and statute, appli
cable to this point. That both the one and the
other are contrary to the statement of the Court,
may be the less unsatisfactory to the very eminent
persons who composed it, if an opinion be correct,
which I scruple not to submit, that, supposing the
law were what they have stated it to be, the judg
ment pronounced by them, irreversible as it is in
effect, might not be altogether sustainable in reason.

For if " every person," not even excepting excom
municates, had, as the Court states, a " statutory
right to burial with the service of the Church," it
follows that the 68th Canon, on which the late suit
was founded, taking away that right in the case of
excommunicates., must be ipso facto void : for T
need hardly say that a canon purporting to extin
guish a right created or recognised by the law of
the land, is not worth the paper on which it is

59

printed. But, if this be so, how can a criminal pro
ceeding be founded on such a canon ?

The only way to escape the consequence herein
suggested, seems to be, the putting a construction
on the canon, which is not very obvious, nor very
satisfactory, especially when the purpose must be
the sustaining of a criminal prosecution. Could it,
then, for this purpose, be maintained, that when
the canon says, " No minister shall refuse to bury
any corpse that is brought to the church ; and if he
shall refuse to bury such corpse, except the party
deceased were denounced excommunicate, majori
ecccommunicatione ;" could it, I ask, be maintained,
for the sole purpose of sustaining a criminal prose
cution, that this exception is not meant to deny the
right of the excommunicate to burial, but only to
exempt the minister from canonical punishment, if
he set that right at nought ?

Happily, the canon needs no such strained con
struction. In its natural and unforced meaning, it
is, as we have seen, in perfect accordance with both
the common and the statute law, as that law existed
when the canon was made.

Happily, too, the judgment is not only irre
versible, but may, we doubt not, be shown to be
sound;* though the particular line of argument

* I venture to submit, that a baptized Infant, even though bap
tized in a schismatical or heretical congregation, being entitled to
reception into the Church, and to all its privileges, whensoever he
shall seek imposition of hands, and do what else the Church may
require, — if he die, before he come to years of reason, ought to be
regarded like all other infants dying in infancy : that Justice, as
well as Charity, bids us presume of such Infant, that if he had been
permitted to live, he would have done what his duty required —
and, therefore, that he is to be dealt with accordingly.

I once entertained strong doubts respecting those Infants, who

60

pursued by the Court, be not such as commands
unqualified assent.

The exception in the canon must yet detain us
for a few moments ; for, if I mistake not, it will be
found to have a very important bearing on the main
question.

It appears to me to shew very plainly the de
scription of persons to whom alone the indefinite
phrase, " any corpse which shall be brought" must
be understood to apply — namely, those, and only
those, who may, for sufficient reasons, incur sentence
of excommunication — in other words, members of
the Church ; for, these, and only these, can be ex
communicated — the censures of the Church having

are baptized by persons heretical in the fundamental Article of the
Trinity, — thinking that, as such persons do not believe in the Di
vinity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, their
baptism cannot be deemed baptism in that Holy Name. I an
swered accordingly one or two of my Clergy, who applied to me
for solution of their own doubts on this point. I think it neces
sary, therefore, thus to declare, that further consideration, and the
balance of the authorities of the early Church, have brought me to
a different mind.

I say " the balance of authorities ;" — for, undoubtedly, that
side of the question, which numbers St. Athanasius and St. Hilary
among its advocates, cannot be said to be without grave authority.
But not only the greater number of Fathers, but the Canons of
Councils, viz. — II. Constantinople, Aries, Laodicea, Trullo — make
the balance incline strongly to the other side. The 8th Canon of
the Council of Nice was differently interpreted, according to the
different views of those who interpreted it.

St. Augustine briefly states his view of the matter to be, that
the Church does not, and ought not to, rebaptize those who have
been baptized, with the words of our Lord's Institution, by any
Heretics whomsoever; because such Baptism is not properly the
Baptism of him who ministers, but Christ's. — See Bingham, Schol.
Hist. &c. P. I. c. i. s. 20.

61

scope and direction only within the Church and
over its own members.

This just principle, which always guided the
ancient Catholic Church in all its discipline, and is,
indeed, of the very essence of that discipline, was
particularly illustrated in its dealing with those
who had been baptized in heresy or schism. When
any of them, being brought to the knowledge of the
truth, sought reconciliation with the Church, they
were not required to go through the same stages of
penance, as the Canons required of Penitents in the
Church : " But they seem," says Bingham,* " to
have been reconciled in a more compendious way,
more suited to their state and condition, as strangers
and foreigners, now just entering within the pale
of the Church"

Surely, this same principle may, and ought to, be
taken as the true rule of interpreting the canons of
our own Church ; for it flows from, and realizes,
the express injunction of Holy Scripture, that we
" judge not them that are without," but leave them
" to their own Master," to whom " they stand or
fall."

And here, speaking of " the pale of the Church,"
I am sorry to be obliged to remark on one unhappy
sentence, which is stated, in the report, to have
fallen from the higher Court in delivering its Judg
ment ; for it went the whole length of subverting
the most approved, and, until so denied, we should
have thought the most undeniable, principle respect
ing Schismatics — " Heretic without, or Schismatic
within, the pale of the Church" — is given as the
language of the Court.

That so portentous, and, considering the authority
* Ecc. Ant. xix. c. 2, s. 7.

62

to which it is ascribed, so mischievous a description
of Schismatic would not, even in the most in
cautious moment, be really uttered in such a place,
we have some special right to hope, because it is
expressly contradicted by the very law which the
Court administers in the last resort. The view
taken of Schism by the Canon Law, is, that so far
as any are Schismatics, so far they are out of the
Church. It is thus expressed by Lyndwood, of
whom the learned Judge of the Arches tells us that
" he is the standard authority on all points of the
Canon Law which may arise in the administration
of justice in these courts :" " Schisma est recessus
ab Ecclesia, vel in parte, vel in toto" Again,
" Schisma est illicita divisio per inobedientiam ab
unitate Ecclesice facta." — Lyndwood, 284.

I have been compelled to notice this strange
dictum, because it has actually been cited to me by
one of my clergy (who had published certain notions
concerning Schism, which called for my animad
version) as " the view taken by the highest Eccle
siastical Court of the land, the Judicial Committee
of Privy Council. In the luminous judgment de
livered by this august tribunal," said he, " the dis
tinction is clearly taken between a Heretic and a
Schismatic; a ' Heretic' is one ' without/ a ' Schis
matic' is one ' within,' the Church." *

* That in a large and improper sense of the word Church, in
cluding all whom God hath called by the revelation of his Truth
from the unbelieving world, a Schismatic may be said to be within
it, no one will deny : but in this sense of the word, a Heretic too
is equally within the Church. Such, however, is not the sense in
which an Ecclesiastical Court can be supposed to use the word —
nor can any sane person advisedly speak, in this sense, of " the
pale of the Church." "The pale of the Church," ex vi termini,
implies Unity ; Schism, ex vi termini, implies breach of that Unity.

63

Now, if the Court really uttered what is ascribed
to it, a stronger illustration cannot be wanted of the
mischief of a judge, however generally learned,
flinging about his random sayings on matters of
high and sacred import, without even seeking that
ordinary measure of information, which educated
men, indeed, might be expected to bring with them.
For the Supreme Court of Ecclesiastical Judicature
to talk thus wildly about Schism, is not less start
ling, than it would be, to hear the Court of Queen's
Bench proclaiming " the community of Christian
men's goods."

Before we leave this matter altogether, it is
right to say that the Court itself seems to have
been startled at the largeness of its own construction
of the general words of the canon ; for it sug
gests that " portions of the burial service itself
would probably exclude persons not Christians."
We thank the Court for this recognition of the
important principle, that the canon must be con
strued with due consideration of the matter and
occasion to which it refers : in other words, that
the nature, and purpose, and terms, of the burial
service must control the use of it. And if, ex
tending the expression of the Court's meaning a
little further, we should say (instead of probably)
this " would certainly exclude persons not Chris
tians," should we be very presumptuous ? So far
from it, that I venture to think that, even if the
Rubric of 1661 had never existed (which forbids the
use of the office to the " unbaptized"), a minister
who should so abuse the Church burial service, as

64

to use it over the corpse of a Jew or a Mahometan,
would be liable to ecclesiastical censure. The Canon
Law itself is plain on this point. Even catechumens,
dying before they are baptized, are excluded from
burial with the service of the Church.* Accord
ingly, both Sir John Nicholl t and Sir Herbert
Jenner ^ say, that " the old law equally prohibited
the interment, with the prayers of the Church, of
those who had died unbaptized by their own fault."

The observation, therefore, of the higher Court,
that by this prohibitory Rubric " a right formerly
existing was taken away," is utterly without found
ation. In truth, all the cases enumerated in that
Rubric were before excluded by the Canon Law
from interment with the office of the Church. §

This consideration is important, not merely as
affecting the statement of the law by that Court,
but also as proving that the several words of the
68th Canon must always have been interpreted with
many limitations ; that, in truth, they applied to
those only who died members of the Church.

But the Court, we have seen, limits its own
limitation to " persons not Christians." Now,
" Christians" is a very vague term, and, in such
a question as we are at present concerned with,
requires some accuracy in distinguishing, before it
can convey a sufficiently definite meaning. Of he
retics and schismatics, we deny not that they are
Christians, if by " Christians " is meant that they

* Item placuit, ut Catechumenis sine redemptione baptism!
defuncti?, neque oblationis commemoratio, neque psallendi im-
penda ur officium. Bracar. Can., 35; Gibson, 450.

t Kempe and Wickes (2 Phil. 268).

I Mastin and Escott (Curteis, 264).

§ Gibson, iibi supra.

65

are not heathen*— that they have received baptism,
which not only makes it unnecessary and unlawful
that they be again baptized, but also gives them a
right, on their testifying a wish to be received into
the Church, making a confession of the true faith,
and seeking a reconciliatory imposition of hands, to
be received accordingly.

But if by " Christians" is meant, in the full sense
of the word, the fideles, " faithful men," those who
hold the Catholic faith, and are in the unity of the
Holy Catholic Church, then, so long as any per
sons continue heretical in their opinions, or schis-
matical in their conversation, we are bound to deny
to them all right to that name, and to the privi
leges which it implies. With " Christians," in the
former sense of the word, we would hold internal
communion, the communion of charity ; but we
cannot, consistently with our duty to the Church,
and even to themselves, hold external communion.

The learned Judge in the Court below recognises
the same principle, and in a manner, I may be per
mitted to say, much less unsatisfactory than the Court
above. " The object of the Church and of the Legisla
ture which confirmed the Rubric," says he, " must
have been to exclude from the offices of the Church
all those who had never been admitted into it by Bap
tism ; all those who, having been once admitted
into it, had for some grievous offence been excluded
from it ; and, thirdly, all those who, dying in the
commission of mortal sin, had by their own act re
nounced the privileges of Christianity."* This, I
say, is a recognition of the same principle, that the
use of the offices of the Church can be proper only

* Curteis's Kep. Mastin ?\ Escott, p. 239.

F

66

in the case of those who have been admitted into
the Church, and have never either been excluded,
or excluded themselves, from the Church. It is
true, that he assumes it as undeniable, that persons
are so admitted, if baptized, whoever may have
been the minister ; whereas we have seen, by the
authority of Bingham, that neither heretical nor
schismatical Baptism does admit into the Church.
Consequently, on the sound principle thus recog
nised by both courts, it does not entitle persons so
baptized to the offices of the Church.

The principle of which I speak, and which is
thus recognised in the judgment of both courts, is,
indeed, so obvious, that it may seem hardly to need
this high authority, which yet we rejoice to see
given to it. It is a principle constantly applied in
respect to the Rubrics and Canons.

For instance, the 59th Canon requires, under
very heavy penalties, " every Parson, Vicar, or
Curate, upon every Sunday and Holiday, diligently
to hear, instruct, and teach the youth and ignorant
persons of his parish the catechism set forth in the
Common Prayer." Is he to teach ignorant persons
who are unbaptized, this catechism ? They are in
cluded under the general terms of the Canon, yet
the very nature of this catechism makes it manifest
that they are not, cannot be, included in its sense.

Again ; the Rubric of the office of " Visitation of

o '

the Sick" says, " When any person is sick, notice
shall be given thereof to the minister of the parish,
who, coming into the sick person's house, shall
say," as is there appointed. Here the phrase " any
person" is so large as to include Jews, Turks, In
fidels, and Heretics, as well as members of the

67

Church ; yet will any one gravely assert that the
Church's office of "Visitation of the Sick" ought to
be used, or can properly be used, to " any persons"
who are not members of the Church ?

Nay, in respect to the very canon in question,
the 68th, no one will contend that the words " any
corpse " must not be limited to those who have a
right to burial in the particular parish churchyard
to which the corpse is brought. It is plain, therefore,
that some limitation must be admitted : but what
can be more reasonable than that which is drawn
from the nature and tenor of the office of burial
itself? In other words, ought it to be used in the
case of those to whom it is manifestly unfitted — to
persons, that is, whom the Church cannot recognise
as having died in communion with it, or as capable
of its blessing ?

No man who respects the principles, or the prac
tice, of the Church of Christ, from and through
all antiquity, will hesitate how this question must
be answered. " This office of burial," says Bing-
ham, " belonged only to the Fidcks, or Communi
cants ; that is, such as died either in the full com
munion of the Church, or else, if they were excom
municate, were yet in a disposition to communicate
by accepting, and submitting to, the rules of pe
nance and discipline in the Church."*

In truth, such a claim as we are said to be
threatened with, on the misunderstood authority of
the late judgment, is simply this — that the Church,
and the Church only, shall cease to have a peculiar
communion of its own ; shall cease to have its own

* Eccl. Ant. B. xxiii. c. 3, s. 23.

F 2

68

rules for its own guidance ; shall cease to have any
special marks whereby to distinguish itself; shall
cease to perform any special offices to its own
members.

For, our offices, be it borne in mind, are designed
for persons belonging to a certain Body, — united to
gether by certain terms of communion. Why are
we to be compelled to disregard the appropriate
nature of these offices, and to abandon these terms
of communion, at the bidding of those who may
mislike our having such distinctions ? They are not
prevented from forming themselves into a separate
society, having their own offices, their own terms
of communion. We only say, that, if they do so se
parate themselves, we cannot admit them to com
munion in religious offices with us. Is there in
this any real hardship to them ? or any real want
of charity in us ?

Let us see, in the instance of burial, to what it
amounts.

Heretics and schismatics have the same right of in
terment in the parochial burial-grounds as we have.*
They may use, in their own meeting-houses, any
office of burial they choose. If they prefer the office
of the Church, they are quite at liberty to use it ;
only they must not use it in our churches, or in the
churchyard. This is the amount of the grievance,
and simply to state it is to expose its frivolity.

* Such seems to have been ruled in Rex v. Taylor, Trinity T.
6 G. I. : " The doctrine there laid down," as stated by the Court
of Arches in the late cause, " was that the Common Law right of
interment in the churchyard belonged to every parishioner, but
that the manner in which the service was to be performed, was to
be left to the Spiritual Court, and there enforced." — Curteis's Rep.
Mastin v. Escott, p. 268.

69

But they will not be satisfied unless the ministers
of the Church perform the office, and treat them
as members of our communion. Why is this?
Why are the}^ anxious for the services of ministers,
whose ministry they either deny or usurp ? or,
rather, both usurp and deny? Or, why do they
claim to be admitted to the privileges of a com
munity, which they do not value sufficiently to seek
to belong to it ?

The real truth is plain. Their only grievance is,
that the Church exists ; and so long as it shall con
tinue to exist, its existence will be, must be, felt a
reproach by those who have abandoned it.

But we are told, that, whatever be the merits of the
question, the laws of the Church itself require its
ministers to perform these offices to Dissenters, and
the}' have aright to enforce obedience to those laws.

That the laws of the Church do, indeed, require
this, may be found not quite so clear as they choose
to represent ; and to prove it will need something
more authoritative than a mere dictum (if there
have been such a dictum), even of the highest court.
But, if the laws of the Church do, indeed, require
its members to perform its offices to those who are
not of its communion, can we doubt that this is
caused by those laws having been made at a time
when such a thing as tolerated heresy or schism was
not even thought of?

In the short interval which elapsed between the
passing of the first Toleration Act and the discon
tinuance of the Sittings of Convocation, none of the
claims which are now harassing the Church were
ever put forward, or even contemplated ; else, we
cannot doubt that due provision would have been

70

then made, to meet the new state of things, and to
prevent a law, which was liberally and wisely de
signed as a relief to conscientious Dissenters, from
being abused, as an engine for the persecution of
the Church.

In short, the offices of the Church having been
devised for members of the Church, the Church
ought to have the power of declaring who are not
its members, and, therefore, who have not a right to
participation in its offices. To withhold this power,
whenever its necessity shall be felt, would not be
easily reconcilable with the first article of the
Magna Charta of olden times, nor with the plainest
obligation of the Magna Charta of more modern
days, the Coronation Oath. But how can such a
power be adequately exercised except by the Church
assembled in Synod ?

In asking for such a power, we wish not, I repeat,
" to judge them that are without." We only claim
to pronounce that they are without — out of our
Church, of which we believe and proclaim that it is
the visible Church of Christ in this land. We
quarrel not with others, though we think them he
retics, or schismatics, and thougli as such we refuse to
them communion with us in the offices of religion ;
but we quarrel not with them, if they choose to say
the same, each of his own separate congregation.

The Court, in delivering the late judgment,
thought proper to " point out the inconsistent and
even absurd consequences which would follow from
the opposite doctrine to its own." *
* Judgment, &c , p. 14,

71

Now I, too, may be permitted to point out the
consequences (due respect forbids my calling them
inconsistent or absurd) which would follow from
some of the dicta of the Court, if they should ever
be exalted to the authority of judgments.

For instance, if, as was said (happily not ruled} by
the Court, it be the duty of the minister to use the
office of burial over " every corpse which shall be
brought to the church or churchyard," it should
seem to be equally the duty of those who bring it,
to permit the office to be used. And yet it is quite
conceivable that this may not always be very satis
factory. For, be it remembered, there are other
persons not in communion with the Church, be
sides that description of Dissenters who promoted
the late suit. Now, let me put a case — it shall be
not an extreme case, but one actually proposed by
the Court itself — that of " Foreigners who have
been baptized otherwise than by ministers of Epis
copal ordination." The Court pointed out as one
of the " inconsistent and even absurd consequences"
of the defendant's plea, that " such foreigners could
not be buried with the rites of our Church, should
they depart this life within our territory." It hap
pens, that many such foreigners from one particular
country, as well as many of our own countrymen who
are in communion with them, die amongst us every
year — I mean Presbyterians of the kirk of Scotland.
Now, let us suppose the corpse of one of these
Presbyterians, Scotch, or Irish, or English, to be
brought to the churchyard of any parish in Eng
land. " If the minister delay burying in the man
ner and form prescribed in the Book of Common
Prayer," he will be suspended, should the Court's

7-2

dictum ever be ruled to be the law. If the minister
plead his conscience, the plea will be either sneered
at, or frowned down. Knowing this, he submits,
and quietly begins the ceremony.

Meanwhile, those who bring the corpse insist on
" immediately interring it, without any ceremony ;"
for such is the order " Concerning burial of the
dead" in the " Directory for Public Worship," set
forth by " Public authority in the Church of Scot
land." They, too, will plead conscience ; they will
cry aloud against the abomination of " a prescript
form of prayer " being imposed upon them, in the
exercise of their common-law right of depositing
the remains of their deceased brother in the parish
churchyard : and as they are not in the habit of
submitting, we need not fear, but that some very
good reason will soon be found why they shall be
submitted to.

Here I would leave the matter, were it not for
one particular of the speech made in delivering the
judgment of the Court above, which has, I under
stand, given some uneasiness to the clergy, and
excited some surprise in others.

That speech has derived more than ordinary im
portance from its having been previously written,
and, as is understood, having received the sanction
of all the learned members of the Court. In stating
this, I wish to be considered as stating it with the
sincerest feeling of respect for the wisdom and justice,
which dictated so cautious a proceeding.

But, then, this caution only gave the stronger
effect to all the observations in the speech, however

73

irrelevant some of them may have been ; however
transcending the authority even of the high tribunal
from which they emanated.

In the conclusion, the Court thought it necessary
to propound, that clergymen, if they shall ever feel
their consciences violated by any requisition of the
law, will have no right to complain : they may do
as laymen have done ; they may resign their offices,
arid " give way to those who could honestly hold
them by performing their appointed functions."

Now, in putting forth this declaration, the Court
seems to me (I must not be afraid of avowing it) to
have a little overstepped the line of its own duty,
to have a little misunderstood the nature of the
matter it was speaking of.

The cure of souls, even though it be endowed, is
not a mere salaried office, which may be resigned at
pleasure. It is a station of high and holy responsi
bility, from which we are not at liberty to withdraw
ourselves, merely because the world's law shall be
found at variance with our duty. Should such a
state of things ever arise — (I do not contemplate it
as in the lowest degree probable ; nor should I think
it decent to suppose it even possible, were not the
supposition thus forced upon us from so high a
place) — but should such a state of things ever arise,
we will complain (for, thank God ! the clergy, like
all other subjects in this free land, may complain)
of the state of the law, which would thus make
obedience to it incompatible with obedience to that
higher law, which we are commissioned and com
manded by God to execute ; and we will urge our
complaint in the firm but temperate tone which be
comes us, not doubting that we shall obtain from a

74

just legislature due attention and redress. Should
the result be otherwise (I have no fear that it ever
will, but should it be otherwise), the State will
deal with us, as it may deem fit ; but we, my rever
end brethren, will not renounce, we will adhere to,
our posts, calmly, meekly, faithfully, resolutely, in
the fear of God, and not of man.

V. I return to the point, from which I have
somewhat digressed, the necessity of a restoration to
the Church of some mode of its meeting in synod.

A bill cannot much longer be delayed (for it has
been repeatedly promised in Speeches from the
Throne, and the promise was renewed at the be
ginning of the late session of Parliament) for carry
ing into effect the recommendations of the Com
mission of 1830, " on the practice and jurisdiction
of the Ecclesiastical Courts." Among those recom
mendations is one that all criminal proceedings
in these courts against laymen shall cease. Of
the wisdom of this recommendation, so far as tem
poral consequences are concerned, none of us, I ap
prehend, will entertain a doubt. But there is a
most important spiritual result, which must be
guarded ; and which, in guarding it, would well
employ the wisdom of the Church in synod, to
whose cognizance the matter properly belongs, — I
mean, what is to be done with such offenders, in
respect to admitting to, or repelling from, the Holy
Communion ?

As the law of the Church, which also is the law
of the State, now stands, the parochial minister has,
as he ought to have, in the first instance, an abso-

75

lute discretion ; but, if he repel, he is obliged to
give an account of the same within fourteen days
to the ordinary, who must proceed against the
offending person according to the canon.

Now, when, in conformity to the recommendation
of the Commissioners, this process shall be done
away, what course is to be substituted ? On the
one hand, to leave without redress a party, who
deems himself unjustly deprived of the highest pri
vilege of a Christian, would be intolerable; but, on
the other hand, it would be certainly not less into
lerable, to give to a grievous, a notorious, an impe
nitent sinner, the right to demand admission to
the Lord's Supper — the most perfect absolution,
be it remembered, which a baptized sinner can
receive.

There is, too, a third case, which must not be
forgotten ; that of a person, a member of the Church,
guilty of heinous sin — heresy, for instance, or blas
phemy — for which he ought to be excommunicated
(that is, put out of the Church), whether he seek
admission to the Lord's Supper or not.

Now, what process is to be provided for the
Church in these cases, and cases such as these ?
Glad, as we shall all be, to see civil consequences
of Church discipline over the laity removed, yet the
right and duty of spiritual discipline we may not,
we dare not, surrender. To do so willingly would
be to betray the Church — to unchurch ourselves.
To force vis to do so, would be an act of direct
persecution.

Well, then, what must be done ? Is this a mat
ter for Parliament to order ? for a Legislature which
no longer professes, no longer would endure, to lie

76

called an assembly of Churchmen — nay, is growing
impatient of being, exclusively,, an assembly of
Christians ? Are the essential rights and powers,
which our Lord conferred, and which the Apostles
taught the Christian ministry by their example,
and required them by express precept, duly to exer
cise — are these to be placed at the mercy of men
who deny conscientiously the very existence of those
rights and powers ?

The great importance of this matter will justify
my adding a few words more upon it. That it is
absolutely necessary to the well-being and well
doing of a Church, I need not say. Our own
Church declares " the right use of ecclesiastical
discipline " to be one of the " three notes or marks "
(pure doctrine, and the sacraments ministered ac
cording to Christ's holy institution, are the other
two) " whereby the true Church is known."*

Now, if excommunication — rescued from all de
grading application of it, but excluding absolutely
from the benefit of all the offices of the Church — " if
excommunication, the greatest judgment upon earth"
(these are the words of Lord Bacon), " be restored
to the true dignity and use thereof, the Church will
be indeed restored to" as much of " its ancient vi
gour" as may be necessary. We might then be more
than content, to see the disuse of open penance, and
other details of discipline of the primitive times.
But nothing can be truly said to justify our ac
quiescence in the continued abandonment of all
discipline whatsoever.

* 2nd Part of Horn, for Whitsunday.

77

Yet, unhappily, we not only have to deplore the
loss of all public discipline, but also the too common
disuse of all attempts to promote even that confi
dential and spiritual communication between the
people and their ministers, which would create a
personal and private discipline, not less likely to
promote a spirit of real penitence because it is both
private and voluntary. Meanwhile, it is undeniably
your duty to endeavour to bring your people to
have that recourse to your private ministry for
ghostly counsel and advice — and, when necessary,
for that benefit of absolution — to which you are
bound to invite them, as often as they are called to
the Lord's Table. No sense of your own weakness,
or of your own unworthiness, ought to make you
afraid or ashamed to exercise the main and dis
tinctive part of the holy office to which you have
aspired — absolution, of which the Church tells you
that it " hath the promise of forgiveness of sins." *
You pretend not to it of your own power ; you pro
fess to act in it only as the commissioned ministers
of Christ. Nay, you profess that your commission
has not any efficacy, further than as it is exercised
in conformity with God's Word, and with the terms
of forgiveness there laid down.

But you also profess, or ought to profess, that
you are ministers empowered by God to pronounce
His forgiveness ; and that they who seek to you, as
ministers of reconciliation with Him, will receive
the blessing which He has annexed to your
ministry.

In saying this, I say not that the absolution of
the priest is necessary to forgiveness — God forbid !
* Horn. " Of Common Prayer and Sacraments."

78

— or that it is more than a mean, which God has
been pleased to bless with His especial promise.

Neither do I say — God forbid ! — that we should
demand the particular confession of those sins which
the penitent calls upon us to forgive in the name
and by the authority of Christ. The only point on
which we are to be satisfied is, the penitence and
faith of the party ; riot the nature, much less the
particulars, of his sins — unless the communication
of these be necessary, and only in the degree in
which it shall be necessary, to quiet his conscience
and assuage his grief. Even the " special confession
of his sins," which " the sick person shall be moved
to make, if he feel his conscience troubled with any
weighty matter," ought not to be urged, till his
troubled spirit cannot be in any other way duly com
forted. And when, " if he humbly and heartily de
sire it," you proceed to give absolution in the form
Vvhich the Church hath provided, be careful to
teach him that unless he be sincere, unless he
have true Christian repentance, the pardon which
you pronounce has no promise of being ratified by
our Lord.

In bringing this matter thus before you, it is pro
bable that, while I may seem to some to ascribe too
much to the office which you hold, I shall be
thought by others to invest it, after all, with no
thing more than a showy, but unsubstantial, garb.
For, it will be said, if the forgiveness which the
priest pronounces is not effectual unless the peni
tent have the qualifications necessary for absolution,
and if, having these qualifications, he will be for
given, whether he receive the absolution of .the
priest or not, to what end serves that absolution ?

79

Now, it would be a sufficient answer, that, as our
Lord has appointed this to be a mode of conferring
his pardon, all who feel the need of that pardon
will gladly and thankfully have recourse to it.

But this is not our only answer. We farther
say, that the authority, thus given by Christ to his
ministers, proves it to be His purpose and His will,
that there be between them and their people that
free spiritual communication, to which I have before
referred. The benefits, hence resulting to both, will
be most valuable. It will impress on the minister,
if anything can, a due sense of the special obliga
tion imposed on him to purity and holiness of life.
For will he, dares he, pronounce God's pardon of
other men's sins, while he himself is laden with
iniquity ? Again, it will compel him, if anything
can, to industry and carefulness in prosecuting his
spiritual studies, in labouring fully to understand
the way of God's salvation, and to apply his know
ledge to the comfort and edification of those who
have recourse to Him. Now this cannot be accom
plished without much of serious reflection — of study
ing of the characters and modes of thinking of his
people — still more, of meditation in God's word —
above all, of earnest prayer to God for His light,
His guidance, His merciful support, in this the most
arduous portion of the ministerial office.

To the people, meanwhile, it is a great blessing
to be thus practically reminded of the closeness of
their spiritual connexion with their pastor — with
him who is an " ambassador" to them " for Christ"
— of the goodness of God in empowering such a
ministry of reconciliation — of the inestimable value
of their own Church privileges—above all, of the in-

80

ternal qualities of faith, penitence, newness of heart,
showing itself in newness of life, which alone can
make those privileges, or the absolution pronounced
to them by their minister, to be anything else but
an increase of their condemnation.

VI. While I thus address you on the necessity of
a closer connexion, than commonly subsists, between
you and your people, I am forcibly reminded of,
what I deeply feel, the not less pressing need of more
frequent and better opportunities of communication
between your bishop and his clergy. At the end
of a visitation, which has lasted more than nine
weeks, with only one day not appointed to some
special service, it is painful to think, how little of
benefit I can hope that I have rendered by thus
rapidly passing through you.

In truth, among the particulars in which I think
that we require an improvement in the outward
form of our Church, I would place in the foremost
rank the expediency, I would almost say the neces
sity, of an increased number of bishops.

In urging this, I hope I shall not be considered
by you as wishing to consult my own ease. The
reasons, for which I should wish a more numer
ous episcopacy in our Church, are such as would
make the charge of every individual bishop not less
laborious, but far more effectual, and therefore far
more satisfactory both to himself and to the Church.

In truth, the overpowering extent of the dioceses,
in which several of us at present have to discharge
our functions, cannot but affect those functions
themselves.

81

Between six and seven hundred parishes, dis
persed over a district one hundred and forty miles
in length, and in some parts half of that extent in
breadth, as in my own case, cannot be even known,
as they ought to be known, to him who has an
equal duty of close connexion with every one of them.

The consequence is, arid can hardly fail to be,
that your bishop is unable to consult and be con
sulted by you, on the many, and, whether happily
or unhappily, the yearly multiplying, occasions on
which we should wish to consult together. If, as
often happens, a matter arises in one parish, which
indispensably demands much consideration, mutual
explanation, protracted correspondence, this can
not be performed, without rendering it physically
impossible for adequate attention to be given to the
reasonable claims of many other cases.

As this is found to occur, many of you, in kind
consideration for my ease, forbear to communicate
with me on occasions on which you would other
wise have a right to expect my best counsel, and
sometimes even my active co-operation. Hence,
in too large a number of instances, we know not
each other so well as every single clergyman ought
to know, and be known by, his bishop. We cannot,
therefore, even when necessity arises, always com
municate together so advantageously to both parties,
as, I believe, we all desire.

Accept this as some excuse for what I painfully
feel, — the miserably imperfect manner in which my
duties among you are discharged. Were it other
wise, were the sphere of my endeavours more con
tracted, I venture to think our intercourse would be
mutually more satisfactory. It would not, I trust,

G

82

lead to petty and vexatious interference, on your
bishop's part, in the details of your own parochial
labours ; but it would better qualify him for the
office of advising where his advice is needed ; it
would place him in a position to undertake, as
he ought to be willing to undertake, much of the
responsibility of enforcing regulations, which the
faithful minister of a parish is often desirous of
seeing enforced, even when a natural and laudable
love of peace with his flock, and a due regard to
the efficiency of his own labours among them, for
bid him to enforce them himself.

It would especially tend, with God's blessing, to
make every bishop to be, as he ought to be, not
merely in name, but in reality, the centre of unity
to the diocese over which he is placed — one, whose
communication with other portions of our Church
should enable him to be the channel of much of
interesting and useful intelligence between different
dioceses — one, who might thus be permitted to pro
mote an accordance of views among the ministers
of the same national Church — to soften real and
remove apparent differences of opinion, to conciliate
conflicting parties, and induce them to see, as they
commonly might see, how much more they differ
in names and words, than in principles.

But, that he should be and do this, it is necessary,
that there should be that closeness as well as fre
quency of intercourse between him and his clergy,
which cannot subsist in dioceses like those of Eng
land.

Need I say how different was the case in the
primitive Church, in which the strong expressions
of Ignatius and the other earliest Fathers, of the

83

necessity of " doing nothing without the bishop,"
may be considered as indicating (besides the com
mission which it is the office of a bishop to give)
his intimate connexion with every portion of his
diocese, rather than a recognition of any exorbitant
or arbitrary extent of episcopal control ?

Before I leave this matter, let me add that I hope
to be in future able to live among you for a larger
portion of every year than I have hitherto done.
The subjects of legislation, so far as the Church is
concerned, which, during the past ten years, have
made the long attendance of bishops in Parliament
more than ordinarily necessary, have now, we may
hope, been brought nearly to a conclusion ; and those
among us whose dioceses are remote, especially
those whose years are felt by them to be advancing,
may be permitted to give themselves more to other
more satisfactory, as well as more appropriate,
duties.

Long as I have occupied your attention, there
remain one or two matters, which I am unwilling-

' O

to omit, because they are connected with the con
duct of your own parochial charge.

VII. Of the very interesting question of the
power of enforcing a rate for the necessary repairs
of Churches, I lament that I cannot yet congratulate
you on a perfect and satisfactory settlement. Should
the Cause, which now awaits the decision of the
Judicial Committee of Privy Council, not be decided
agreeably to your wish, and perhaps your expecta
tion, it will not follow that no adequate means of
asserting the right of the Church are left. I have

a 2

84

heard it said, on very high authority, that proceed
ings may be taken in the Spiritual Court against
those persons who shall, in a meeting of vestry,
unreasonably resist the voting of a necessary rate
for necessary purposes. It may be painful to be
driven to such courses, but it would be much more
painful to deserve the reproach of deserting the
cause of that Church of which we are ministers.

I turn to a more agreeable subject.

VIII. I have already congratulated you, with
thankfulness to Almighty God, on the growing in
telligence and interest of the laity in what concerns
the Church as a spiritual body. It is our duty, my
reverend brethren, not to be wanting either to their
expectations, or to their instruction, in these matters.
Above all, we ought gladly to avail ourselves of their
desire to act with us, as Churchmen.

Now, allow me to submit to the judgment of
every one of you, according to the special circum
stances of his congregation, whether it may not be
practicable to induce very many among them to
unite with their minister in regular contribution,
at stated times, of sums, however small — " the
widow's mite " I would gladly receive, or even ask —
for the support of those objects of Christian bene
ficence, for which associations only can adequately
provide. I need not remind you how consonant this
is with apostolic precept and practice.*

I would specially suggest the Societies for propa
gating the Gospel in those of our own colonies which
may need external aid, and the spreading of missions,

* 1 Cor. xvi. 2.

85

on sound Church principles, among the heathen,
especially among those with whom conquest or com
merce may have more closely connected us.

There is, too, one other claim still more imperative
than either, — I mean the necessities of those large
masses of population, in our own land, which
are left in a state of spiritual destitution. If the
happier lot of this portion of England brings us not
to witness many such cases, shall we be the less
anxious to relieve them ?

Now, the Rubric offers — I might almost say,
requires — the use of one expedient, excellently
adapted for this purpose ; I mean the Offertory,
which the Church contemplates as to be read,
whenever any portion of the Communion Service
be used, whether the Sacrament be administered
or not.

Do not, however, imagine that I wish to prescribe
to you such a measure. But give it consideration,
and adopt it, or anything else of the same sort, as
you shall judge best. Let me only remind you,
that the more you can induce your people to act
with you, as their minister, in such joint labours of
love, the more close will be your connection, the
more affectionate your intercourse, the more blessed
your ministrations both to them and to yourselves.

In respect to the various associations for religious
objects, I will venture to make one further sugges
tion : that you admit not into your pulpits any
missionary from any of them ; no, not from any.
(I say, into your pulpits ; for their assistance will
often be very useful to you in meetings out of
Church.)

Preach for these associations yourselves, if you

86

will, and as you will ; or obtain, if you think it ex
pedient, the assistance of neighbouring ministers in
occasionally preaching for you ; but do not en
courage strangers to go through your Churches,
extolling, and sometimes exaggerating, with all the
arts of rhetoric (as a stranger sent for the pur
pose is too likely to do), the claims of the society
which employs him. It is a great disturbance of
the parochial system ; it produces an unwholesome
excitement ; it turns God's house into a hall of de
clamation ; too often pampering the diseased appe
tite for a tone of teaching which is neither milk
nor strong meat, but a crude and mawkish sub
stitute, by which no generous or manly growth of
Christian charity was ever yet reared.

Again, I would earnestly press on you the duty
of not interfering one with another, in respect to
these societies. If any of you should judge any
among them especially worthy of his support, let
him give to them that support in his own parish, or
in the parish of any neighbouring clergyman who
wishes his assistance. But I conjure you not to
intrude unbidden, much less, contrary to the ex
pressed or known opinion of the proper pastor.
You may be quite sure, that you will do incalculably
more of evil, by weakening the influence of a bro
ther clergyman over his flock (as you will weaken
it, if you successfully support what he opposes), than
you can do of good, by forwarding the cause of the
best of these societies, be it what it may. Besides,
the evil is certain, the good, at the best, must be
doubtful ; and remember what an apostle has said
of those who " do evil that good may come."

87

IX. One word more. At a time when Church ex
tension is sought by all of us, and when in most of
our Churches there is not space for receiving all
the parishioners, it is well to bear in mind that the
system of pews is, by law, tolerable, only where they
do not interfere with the accommodation of those
who have a right to worship God in their Parish
Church. In this respect, all parishioners have, by
common law, an equal right, which the Church
wardens, whose duty it is to order what is necessary
for the good regulation of Churches, have no right
to disregard. If they do, the Bishop's Court has
both the power and the duty to redress the wrong.
But it is manifest that they whose rights are most
likely to be violated — I mean the poor — are dis
abled, by their poverty, from seeking redress in
courts.

Now, this is a general evil, which requires to be
gravely dealt with. I do not advise a sudden and
violent breaking in upon an inveterate, however
unjustifiable, usage. But I strongly urge it on my
Clergy, to do their utmost, quietly, to induce a
better state of things. And here I rejoice to bear
testimony to the improvement which has been re
cently effected in more than one Church in this
Diocese in this respect. I hope, too, that another
instance will soon be presented to us in Exeter itself.
In several of the very handsomest of our ancient
Churches, the old and proper arrangement prevails —
that of open seats, either in part or throughout the
Church ; with great addition to the beauty, as well
as to the devotional character, of the buildings. I
would mention the Churches of Hartland and Chit-
tlehampton. In the former, the ancient seats were

88

never removed ; in the latter, the pews were removed,
about 70 years ago, by the good feeling and exer
tions of the chief landed proprietor of the parish.

The origin of the evil is not such as can endear it,
to any Churchman ; for it was part of the sys
tematic outrage of the sacredness of Churches by
the Puritans, in the day of their brief triumph in
the 17th century, when they perverted these hal
lowed edifices into little better than preaching-
rooms.

The continuance of it, in any case, must surely be
ascribed to want of due energy in our attempts to
remove it ; and to want of due consideration on the
part of those who may seem to profit by it. Surely,
if such persons reflect, they cannot but feel, painfully
feel, the incongruity of making the very worship of
God an occasion of injustice to man — of usurpation
on the rights of the poor. Nor would they, on
consideration, fail to be ashamed of carrying their
love of worldly distinction into that house, where
all they see and all they hear, all they want and
all they pray for, ought to remind them that there
" the rich and the poor meet together ;" not equal,
indeed, in God's sight, but distinguished by qua
lities, which will make many who think themselves
the first to be the last, and the last first.*

And now, my Christian brethren, thanking you
for the kindness with which you have borne so long
a trespass on your patience, " I commend you to
God, and to the Word of His Grace." May He

* I am enabled by the kindness of Archdeacon Froude to give
in the Appendix No. III. a valuable statement of the law on this
subject extracted from a Charge delivered by him to the clergy of
the Archdeaconry of Totnes, in the spring of 1841 .

89

enable us to improve every opportunity of our thus
meeting together, to our mutual comfort and sup
port in the discharge of our several duties to Him
and to His Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord !

I avail myself of this opportunity to disclaim be
fore my Clergy, who have a right to expect such a
disclaimer, sentiments and language ascribed to
me respecting the Poor Law Amendment Act,
which never were, and while it pleases God to con
tinue to me the gift of reason, never can be mine.

In a publication entitled ' Portraits of Conserva
tive Statesmen,' the following words are said to
have been spoken by me, in my place in the House
of Lords. If really spoken there by me, or any
Bishop, they could not have failed to draw down a
loud and merited burst of indignation, which would
have been justly echoed through the land.

" My Lords," said the Bishop on one occasion,
" this is a law which the people of England dare
not submit to ; it is a law which I am resolved I
never will submit to. I am resolved to pay no
rates raised under the authority of the Commis
sioners. I am resolved to denounce their authority
in any and every way. I am prepared to go into
a court of justice, and, before twelve of my country
men, to be tried for having declared that the laws
of England are not to be made by these Commis
sioners." Again : " When Englishmen understand
this law, they will not submit to it ; as Englishmen
and Christians, they ought not to submit to it."

When my attention was first called to this matter

90

I applied to the publisher, who promised to take
measures to contradict the statement : but the work
passed into other hands, and nothing was done.

The misrepresentation has been accounted for in
the following way : — At some public meeting a
speaker, having cited some words of mine, pro
ceeded to express his own sentiments in the words
given above, which were afterwards copied by
mistake into this publication, as mine.

91

APPENDIX I.

Plymtree, August 27, 1842.

MY LORD,

I AM just honoured by the receipt of your Lordship's
note of yesterday, and have great pleasure in thus recurring
to the conversation which I had the happiness to hold with
you at Plymouth.

The instances, to which I referred, of the great wisdom of
our Rubrics, and their general sufficiency for the solution of
difficulties as they arose from time to time in the formation
of infant churches, were chiefly in the case of the two Sacra
ments.

1. One of the greatest hinderances to the sound and
healthy state of the Native Churches in India has always
been, as your Lordship is well aware, the precipitancy of
the missionary's zeal in increasing the number of his con
verts, and consequently the carelessness with which the Sa
crament of Baptism has been sometimes administered to
unworthy recipients. In the province of Tinnevelly espe
cially this evil was most apparent some few years ago, so
as almost to rival at one time the rapidity and multitude of
Xavier's conversions ; and the unhappy consequences were
soon seen in frequent apostacies of such merely nominal
Christians. On the other hand, the more cautious and self-
denying missionary, alarmed at these errors of his bolder
brethren, was in danger of deferring or withholding the
Sacrament on insufficient grounds. The difficulties in both
cases were at once met by insisting on the observance of the
first Rubric in the office for the baptism of adults, requiring
that " timely notice shall be given to the bishop, or whom he
shall appoint for that purpose, a week before, at the least,
by the parents or some other discreet persons, that so due
cave may be taken for their examination whether they be
sufficiently instructed in the principles of the Christian reli-

92

gion ; and that they may be exhorted to prepare themselves
with prayers and fasting for the receiving of this holy Sacra
ment." This admirable rule, if always enforced, as it might
easily be, at once represses the heedlessness of one party,
and gives due support and protection to the sober caution of
the other.

2. The other case to which I referred is the exercise of a
wise and holy discipline among the new converts by the
enforcement of the second and third Rubrics of the Holy
Communion ; and in far the greater part of the churches of
Southern India this discipline is now happily established and
humbly embraced.

Great scandals also were often complained of, arising from
hasty and unlawful marriages ; and the exact observance of
the Rubric in the publication of banns on three several
Sundays was generally found sufficient to guard against
them in that simple state of society.

I need not add that in the first years of the Episcopate in
India all these salutary laws of our Church had been
lamentably neglected even by our own clergy, and that the
evil had been tenfold increased by the administration of the
offices being intrusted (from the sad necessity of the times)
to ministers of the Lutheran Church. Happily those days
are gone by ; and nothing can be more beautiful and encou
raging than to observe, as fresh difficulties arise, with what
prospective wisdom our Reformers appear to have framed
the Rubrics of our Apostolic Church, and thus prepared her
to be, what she is now become, the great Missionary of the
World. In almost every case of reference made to me for
counsel and direction while Archdeacon of Madras (and
they were very numerous), I uniformly found the most com
prehensive and satisfactory answer was an appeal to Her
authoritative directions.

I have the honour to be,
My dear Lord, with great respect,

Your Lordship's
Very faithful and obliged Servant,

THOMAS ROBINSON.

The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter,
Sec. See. &c.

93

APPENDIX II.

I HAVE reserved to this place the following attempt to shew
the absolute incompatibility of assent to our Articles with
assent to the decrees of Trent, not in every instance in which
they are contrary (even in the letter) to each other, but in a
few of the most important.

I begin with our sixth Article : — •

It contains two propositions ; first, " That whatsoever is
not read in Holy Scripture (i. e. the Canonical Books of the
Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any
doubt in the Church), nor can be proved thereby, may not
be required to be believed as an article of faith."

This proposition is in direct contradiction to the decree
of the fourth session * of the Council of Trent, which receives
with equal pious affection and veneration (pari pietatis af-
fectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur) the written word
and the unwritten traditions which have been handed down
from the Apostles to our time, and have been preserved by
constant succession in the Catholic Church. It further
anathematizes every one " qui sciens et prudens traditiones
prsedictas contempserit."

The second proposition in our Article excludes, by name,
all the books which we call the Apocrypha, from the cata
logue of those which it calls canonical; while the decree
includes them all, by name (except the third and fourth
books of Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses), and it pro
nounces anathema against all who deny that any of them is
canonical.

Contradiction cannot be more direct.

I proceed to our ninth Article, " Of original or birth sin."
* April 8, 1546.

94

It affirms that " this infection of nature doth remain, yea,
in them that are regenerated," and that " the Apostle doth
confess that it hath of itself the nature of sin."

This is contrary to, and must have been intended to
contradict, the very letter of the Decree of the fifth Ses
sion * of Trent, which declares anathema against all " who
assert that everything which has the true and proper
nature of sin is not wholly taken away in Baptism." The
Holy Synod admits that " the Apostle calls concupiscence
sin ;" but it " declares that the Catholic Church never un
derstood that it was so called because it is truly and
properly sin in those that are regenerate, but because it
proceeds from sin, and inclines to sin ;" and anathema is
pronounced against every one who holds the contrary
opinion.

It is worthy of remark, that the author of the Tract, pro
fessing to deal with those of our Articles which are opposed
to the doctrine of Rome, passes over this ninth in silence.
Was this because it was impossible to dissemble the contra
diction of the Article to the Decree of Trent? It could not
be because the difference — the practical difference — is unim
portant. For, the doctrine of Trent on this point is one of
the main supports of the whole corrupt system of Rome.
It leads to the fatal error, that the regenerate can fulfil the
law of God by perfect obedience — that their good works can
satisfy for sins — that they can stand before the Judgment
Seat of God, arid claim everlasting life as due to their own
deservings. Our doctrine, on the other hand, must make
those who hold it in sincerity " walk humbly with their
God."

I proceed to the 25th Article, which we shall find to
be in direct and, we cannot doubt, purposed contradiction
to the Decree of the seventh Session f of Trent, " De Sacra-
mentis." It says, "There are two Sacraments ordained of
Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and

* June 17, 1546. t March 3, 1547.

95

the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sa
craments (that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders,
Matrimony, and Extreme Unction) are not to be counted
Sacraments of the Gospel — for that they have not any
visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."

This, according to the writer of the Tract, is not incon
sistent with the letter of the Council's Decree.

What, then, shall we say of the very first Canon of Trent
on the Sacraments ? " If any one shall say that the Sacra
ments of the Gospel (novse legis) were not all instituted by
our Lord Jesus Christ, or that they are more or fewer than
seven — namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Pe
nance, Extreme Unction, Orders, Matrimony — or that any
one of these seven is not truly and properly a Sacrament,
let him be anathema."

The writer proceeds, " They (five of the seven) are not
Sacraments in ANY sense, unless the Church has the power
of dispensing grace through rites of its own appointment."
(In other words, they were instituted, not by our Lord, but
by the Church : and to say this is manifestly to contradict
the Decree, and to incur the anathema of the Council.)
The writer adds, " Or is endued with the gift of blessing
and hallowing the rites and ceremonies, which, according to
the 20th Article, it hath power to decree. But, we may well
believe the Church has this gift"

In other words, the Church has the power to make Sa
craments ! to annex the grace of God to some rite or cere
mony, which the Church may, at its discretion, decree to
day and annul to-morrow ! And this portentous assertion is
advanced, in order to conciliate the Article of the Church of
England with the Decree of Trent ! though both the one
and the other, however else they may differ, agree in this —
that the Sacraments of the new Law are ordained by Christ
himself.

There remains another distinction by which the writer
endeavours to explain away the seeming difference in the
doctrine of the two Churches on the subject of Sacraments.
" The Roman Catholic," says he, "' considers that there are

96

seven Sacraments ; we do not strictly determine the num
ber. However, what we do determine is, that Christ has
ordained two special Sacraments, as generally necessary to
saltation. This, then, is the characteristic mark of these
two, separating them from all other whatsoever; and this is
nothing else but saying, in other words, that they are the
only justifying rites, or instruments of communicating the
Atonement."

Now, if it appear that the Decrees of Trent consider any
other Sacrament as " a justifying rite" — as " an instrument
of communicating the Atonement" — and as " necessary to
salvation" — it is plain that the writer is as unfortunate in
this as in his other expedients.

Let him look, then, to the first chapter of the Decree
" of Penance;'5* it expressly declares, that " God, rich in
mercy, has given a remedy of life to those who, after bap
tism, have delivered themselves up to the bondage of Sin,
and into the power of the Devil — namely the Sacrament of
Penance, by which the benefit of the death of Christ is
applied to those who have fallen :" and a canon is added,
anathematizing " every one who shall say that penance is
not a Sacrament instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, for
reconciling the faithful to God, as often as they shall have
fallen into sin after baptism. "f

Does not this make the Sacrament of Penance " a justi
fying rite?" " an instrument of communicating the Atone
ment ?" Does it not also, by manifest implication, make it
" generally necessary to salvation ?"

Of the 28th Article, the writer says that, " in rejecting
Transubstantiation, our Article opposes itself to a certain
plain and unambiguous statement, not of this or that coun
cil, but one generally received or taught both in the schools
and in the multitude ;"| therefore, it may be subscribed

* Session 14, Nov. 25, 1551. t Cap. ii. can. 1.

t Tract 90, p. 51.

97

without contradicting the letter of the Decrees of the Coun
cil of Trent.

I will give an abstract of the Decrees of this Council on
this subject, contrasting therewith, as I go on, the precise
terms of our Article.

The Decree * states, " That, after the consecration of the
bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man,
is truly, really, and substantially contained in the Sacra
ment of the Eucharist, under the species of those sensible
objects:" it also says,f that, "by the consecration of the
bread and wine, a change is wrought of the entire substance
of the bread into the substance of the body of our Lord,
and of the entire substance of the wine into the substance of
his blood, which change is conveniently and properly called
by the Holy Catholic Church Transubstantiation."

Our Article says, " Transubstantiation, or the change of
the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord,
cannot be proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the
plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sa
crament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions."

Can this be subscribed in any sense, consistent with the
letter of the Council's Decree ?

2. Again; the Decree pronounces " Anathema J against
every one who says that Christ, exhibited in the Eucharist,
is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and
really."

Our 28th Article says, that " the body of Christ is given,
taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and
spiritual manner.1' Therefore every one who subscribes
the article incurs the anathema of the Decree.

3. Once more ; the Council pronounces§ anathema against
any who affirms that " in the holy Sacrament of the Eucha
rist" (i. e. the consecrated bread and wine) " Christ, the
only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with even the
external worship of Latria" (i. e. the highest kind of adora
tion), " and that he is not to be solemnly carried about, or

* Sess. 13, Oct. 11, 1551, cap. 1.
t Ib., cap. 4. J Can. 8. § Can. 6.

H

98

is not to be presented to the people, in order that he may be
publicly adored, and that the adorers of Him" (in the con
secrated bread and wine) " are idolaters."

It further adds an anathema* against all who say " that
the Holy Eucharist ought not to be reserved /' whereas our
Article says, " The Sacrament was not, by Christ's ordi
nance, reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

Can these different positions be honestly subscribed by the
same person ?

I will adduce only one other instance of the irreconcilable
difference between the Decrees of Trent and our own
Articles ; which may not be passed over ; because this is
the writer's strongest case, inasmuch as the Decree of
Trent was made (as I have already said) subsequently to
the Synod of 1562 — subsequently, therefore, to the drawing
up of the Article — I mean the

22ND — OF PURGATORY.

" The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, pardons
(indulgentiis), worshipping, and adoration, as well of
images as of reliques, and also invocation of saints, is a
fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty
of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God."

Upon this Article he has dwelt more largely than on any
other; encouraging (he unwary to think with forbearance,
and even with favour, of some of the worst corruptions of
Rome.

His first remark will not be gainsaid — l< That the doc
trine objected to is the Romish doctrine." He proceeds to
say, " The primitive doctrine is not condemned in the
Article; there was a primitive doctrine on all these points —
how far Catholic or universal, is a farther question — but
still so widely received, and so respectably supported, that
it may well be entertained by a theologian now."

Taking, as he does, Purgatory first, I deny that there

* Can. 7.

99

was a primitive doctrine concerning it. (Of the other parti
culars, he does not pretend to state any primitive doctrine ;
though that there was a primitive doctrine on some of them
is very true — but a doctrine contrary to the Romish, as is
made manifest by our homilies, at least as respects the
worship of images and saints.)

But for Purgatory : " A primitive doctrine" implies, not
a mere opinion, loosely held, or thrown out, by one or two
writers, but something taught and maintained by a consi
derable number, or the known formal teaching of some one
Father, accepted by a body of followers ; and this within
the first three centuries. If it have not the former condi
tion, it is not a " doctrine /' if it have not the latter, it is
not " primitive.1'

Now, I think I shall not be contradicted, when I say that
Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen were the only Fathers
who have left any intimation, even of an opinion, bearing
the faintest resemblance to the doctrine of Purgatory.

Tertullian, in more than one passage, recognises the pro
bability — but he nowhere teaches — that every small offence
must be expiated after death. But how? By delay of our
resurrection. Clearly, this is not Purgatory.

Cyprian, in one instance, used words which might be
taken in favour of Purgatory ; but which are more com
monly understood of the severity of ancient penance. At
any rate, as more than one other plain passage in his
writings are inconsistent with the belief of a Purgatory, his
meaning in the passage referred to must be understood ac
cordingly ; or, at the utmost, his notion of Purgatory did not
amount even to a fixed opinion.

Origen held and taught, that sinners shall suffer punish
ment till all their sins be expiated; and then they shall
commence a new existence — a tenet which was condemned
by the Fifth General Council as heretical, because it de
nied the eternity of future punishment. But, besides that it
was thus condemned, this has nothing to do with Purga
tory ; for it relates to the judgment of the last day.

For the like reason, the notion of the purging of the soul

H 2

100

by the fire of conflagration at the day of judgment, which
is specially adduced by the writer, is out of the pre
sent inquiry, which respects an intermediate state, in which
those who suffer may be helped by the prayers, &c., of the
Church on earth.

Now for the Doctrine of Trent on Purgatory. The
writer is confident that " it was not opposed by the Article,
because the Article was drawn up before the Decree of the
Council." He adds, " What is opposed, is the received
doctrine of the day, and, unhappily, of this day too, or the
doctrine of the Roman schools."

That the doctrine of Trent must have been included
under the phrase " Romish Doctrine'' in 1571 and 1604,
when the Articles were revised, and subscription to them
synodically enjoined, cannot be denied; and thus would
this evasive plea be sufficiently refuted. But it is not ne
cessary to have recourse to such a refutation. The Article,
as it was originally set forth, must be considered to include,
in its condemnation, the doctrine of Trent; and this, on the
writer's own showing, for he says, •' what is opposed, is the
doctrine of the day."" Now, the Article was set forth in
the spring of 1563, and the Decree was made before the
end of the same year. Unless, therefore, we suppose, with
out a shadow of evidence, either that the Decree of Trent
was not the " doctrine of the day," or that the " doctrine of
the day" had changed between May and December, it
must have been included in " the Romish Doctrine," which
the Article condemns.

But this is not all. The writer of the Tract can hardly
be so ignorant of the Acts of the Council, however he may
presume on the ignorance of others, as to need to be re
minded that, in one of its earliest decrees, made fifteen years
before, the doctrine of a Purgatory is incidentally but plainly
maintained. In the 30th Canon of Justification, the date of
which is 1547,* an anathema is pronounced against ft any
one who shall deny that, after the forgiveness of sin on true
repentance, and the consequent deliverance from everlasting

* Sess. vi., Jan. 13, 1547.

101

punishment^ some punishment still remains to be undergone,
either in this life or in Purgatory, before the soul can be ad
mitted into heaven."

2. " Indulgences" are next in order. Here the writer
would wish us to believe, that our Article condemns only the
abuses which the Council itself sought to restrain — namely,
" large and reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin,
obtained on money payments/' — not the doctrine itself, and
at any rate not the doctrine of Trent, for the Decree was
subsequent to the Article.

On this point I must first state what " the Romish doc
trine" is — a matter left by the wrriter in profound obscurity,
as it always is by those who wish to palliate the enormities
of Rome. It is as follows : — " That, as a single drop of
Christ's blood could have sufficed for the redemption of the
whole human race, the rest was not lost, but was a treasure
which he acquired for the militant Church, to be dispensed
by St. Peter and his successors, for reasonable causes, for the
total or partial remission of the temporal punishment due to
sin, whether penances in this life, or, more especially, suf
ferings in Purgatory ; that, for an augmentation of this trea
sure, the merits of the Blessed Virgin, and the superabundant
satisfactions of the Saints (satisfactions, that is, over and
above what were necessary on their own account), are super-
added ; that those who obtain an indulgence out of this
treasure are released from so much of the temporal punish
ment due for their sins to God's justice as is equivalent to
the indulgence so obtained."

O

This is " the Romish doctrine " of indulgences, which I
need not remind you was the immediate occasion of the
Reformation ; and the denial of it was the express ground
of the condemnation of Luther. This, then, is " the Romish
doctrine " condemned by our Article ; but the Tridentine
doctrine on this subject, the writer tells us, is not included
in the censure (for the same reason as in the former instances),
because the Article was drawn up before the Decree. Here,
too, waving all else that may be said, I shall cite an earlier
Decree (of the 2 1st Session of the Council in 1562), which

102

distinctly recognises this treasure (cwlestes box Ecclesice
Thesatiros] as the foundation of indulgences.*

/ o

Veneration and worship of images and relics come next.
Of this the writer has the confidence to say, after citing from
the Homilies certain gross instances of idolatrous worship as
the real subject of the Article's censure, that the Council of
Trent admits these enormities, and forbids them : thus giving1
it to be understood that, in this particular, the Decree of the
Council and the Article of our Church are in perfect har
mony.

Now, what is the fact? The Council does indeed, as in
decency it could not forbear doing, " desire the extinction of
all abuses, should any creep into those holy and salutary
observances" —the worship of images and relics; and it
orders only that due honour and veneration be paid to images.
It appears, however, from its own words, that this " due
honour" extends to "kissing the images, uncovering the
head, and falling prostrate before them, because, by so
honouring the images, we adore Christ and venerate the
Saints, whom they represent. "f

Will a presbyter of our Church dare to mislead his un
wary readers into a belief, that doctrine and practices, such
as these, may consist with adherence to our own Articles ?

" Invocation of Saints " follows. Here, too, the writer
tells us, the Article gains a witness and concurrence from the
Council of Trent in condemning two particulars: all sacri
ficing and all falling down in worship to Saints ; and yet
the Decree to which he refers shows that the Church is
accustomed to celebrate masses (i. e. the sacrifice of Christ)
to the honour of Saints; and the passage which I have just
quoted respecting images, shows that to prostrate ourselves
in worship to Saints is esteemed a portion of their due
honour.

But the writer proceeds to say, that the Article opposes
not all invocation of Saints, but " all that trenches on wor-

* Sess. xxi., July 16, 1662, cap. 9, De Reformatione,
t Sess. xxv. • Dec. de Invocationc, &c.

103

ship/' — "the question whether calling on them to pray for
us he such being open."

Now, the Article condemns " the Romish doctrine con
cerning invocation of Saints/1 part of which doctrine, as
given in the Decree of Trent, is, " that it is a good and bene
ficial practice to address supplication to Saints, and to have
recourse to their prayers and influence with God, for the
obtaining benefits from Him, through our Lord Jesus
Christ." This is not all ; it pronounces anathema against
all "who say that to address oral or mental prayer to the
Saints reigning in heaven is contrary to the Word of God,
and derogatory from the honour of our only Mediator; or
that it. is, in the language of our Article, ' a fond thing '-
stultum esse."

Can all this — especially can mental prayer — be explained
away, and made not "to trench on worship ;" and so to pro
tect the Decree of Trent from falling within the condemna
tion of the Article ?

Suppose that it does, still there remains one particular
which no sophistry can elude. The Decree of Trent recog
nises, and even refers with especial honour to, a former
Council, the Second Nicene,* whose Acts and Decrees on
the worship of images, involving the worship of Saints as
their prototypes, are the most astounding monument of the
infatuation of man, when he dares to go beyond the Word
of God in matters of religion, which the history of human
weakness has ever exhibited. I will not weary you with
much, but accept one or two specimens : — One of the
most formal of all its Decrees pronounces that " images are
retained and worshipped, not only that by memory we may
ascend to the prototype, but also that we may be made par
takers of some sanctification." It is afterwards said that,
"by worshipping them, and giving them honorary adoration,
we actually do partake of sanctification." "As for those
who say it is sufficient to have images for the sake of exciting

* Id quod Conciliorum, prcesertim secundte Nicence Synodi,
decretis contra imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum. Sess. xxv,
Dec. de Invocatione, &c.

104

the livelier remembrance of their prototypes, and not for
worship, alas their madness !" So the holy Synod 'exclaims;
but this madness is not suffered to protect its subjects from
anathema.

Now all this is the established " Romish doctrine con
cerning the worshipping of images and invocation of Saints;"
and was so ages before our Article was drawn up — all this
the Council of Trent has formally recognised, adopted, and
made its own. Who, then, will dare to reconcile fidelity to
the Articles of our Church with adherence to this Decree of
Trent?

My patience is exhausted, but my matter is not. I for
bear, however, all further details; and simply enumerate
the other Articles of our Church which contradict the very
letter of the Tridentine Decrees. They are the 13th, " Of
works before justification;" the 15th, "Of Christ alone
without sin," — the Council having the confidence to decree
that the Virgin Mary also was without sin ; the 24th, " Of
speaking in the congregation in such a tongue as the people
understandeth ;" the 30th, " Of both kinds;" and the 31st,
so far as respects the sacrifices of masses.

105

APPENDIX III.

Extract from the Charge of the Venerable Archdeacon
Fronde in 1841, "on Pews m Churches."

I PROCEED to another consideration, about which also
much misunderstanding prevails — I mean the duties of
churchwardens with respect to church-seats.

As the churchwardens have the care of the church, so
also have they of all the seats therein ; and not only are
they to repair them, but also to see that good order be pre
served in them, that no disturbance or contention be made
about them in the house of God, and that every man take
the seat and place in it which he hath a right to do. whe
ther it be by prescription, or that he hath been placed there
by the order of the Bishop or by themselves.

By common law, all the seats in the church belong to the
parishioners generally, without distinction of persons. The
exceptions are, where the lord of the manor, or any other
resident proprietors, having an ancient messuage therein,
have immemorially (with their ancestors) sat in an aisle
and always repaired the same, the charge of repair being a
main ingredient in support of such a claim. In such case,
it will be presumed that the aisle was first built by the
founder, with the consent of the minister, patron, and
Bishop.

For the same reason, an inhabitant, having a house in the
parish, may, by the like consent, and with a faculty from
the Bishop, annex an aisle to the church for the exclusive
use of himself and family, and enjoy it so long as he and

they continue to be residents and to be members of the
Church of England (such, I believe, are now the conditions
invariably laid down in every licence of this kind). But no
such title can be good to a man and to his heirs ; inasmuch
as the aisle must always be supposed to be held in respect
of the house, for the inhabitants of which the faculty is
granted. In like manner, a person may prescribe to a seat
in the body of the church, but this claim must be supported
by very clear proof of immemorial use and repairs. These
are called prescriptive rights.

All other seats in the body of the church are in the dis
posal of the churchwardens, subject to the control of the
Bishop ; and therefore, if any one feels aggrieved in the seat
assigned him, he may apply to the Bishop for a remedy, and
his judgment is final. But, when I speak of an application
to the Bishop, it must be understood that the regular way
of preferring such a complaint must be through the Chan
cellor of the Diocese in his Court at Exeter, for he is the
Bishop's representative, as a law judge is the representative
of the King in our common-law courts of justice, and the
person who is meant by the word Ordinary in such matters.
The common law never interferes in these cases, except
where a seat is claimed by prescription.

When a person has been placed in a particular seat by
the churchwarden, or has been suffered to occupy a sitting
quietly for any considerable length of time, he is said to
have a possessory right therein, but he is still liable to be
placed elsewhere bv the churchwardens, if the general con
venience of the inhabitants clearly calls for it : I say clearly
calls for it, for it must not be done on light grounds.

As, in making general arrangements for the convenience
of the inhabitants, the churchwardens are considered the
fittest persons to be intrusted with that duty, so should they
be very cautious of showing any improper partiality in its
exercise. It is their duty to allot to all, as far as circum
stances permit, a fair proportion of room, and in such parts
of the church as may seem suited to their degree or station
in life. As property changes hands, and families vary in

107

their respective numbers, and other alterations take place in
their condition, it is obvious that such new arrangements
should be occasionally made ; but as great responsibility
rests on a churchwarden in making such changes, I repeat
the caution I have before given.

In reply to a question not unfrequently put to me,
" whether vacant space in a church may be appropriated
without a faculty to the accommodation of the inhabitants,"
my answer is, " that, without feeling sure of its being a
strictly legal proceeding, I think seats may be so added,
the vestry consenting thereto, without danger of conse
quences."

If done at the charge of the parish, the sittings so gained
should be free and unappropriated ; but if put up at the
expense of individuals, the grant of space to each should be
limited to his immediate wants, with a clear understanding
that, although unlikely to be disturbed, no private right
would be conveyed beyond that of present possession. In
making such alterations, there must be no encroachments on
the main passages, nor must the sides of the seats, if en
closed, be carried to a height exceeding four feet.

As churches were originally built for the general accom
modation of all classes, and the lands of the founders were
charged with the repairs, or estates were subsequently given
by pious persons for such uses, it follows, that no part of
that accommodation — that provision for giving effect to spi
ritual instruction — can be transferred by sale, under any
authority or on any pretence whatever ; and that purchases
of church-seats, except where they are legally appurtenant
to houses, and pass with those houses from one possessor to
another, in the manner before described, are null and void.
It is a broad principle of the law, that seats in a church can
neither be sold nor let, and that for pews let by individuals,
or by the churchwardens, the payment of a seat-rent cannot
be enforced. Neither can any one, not an inhabitant of the
parish, have any legal claim to. any sitting in the church.
I mention these things thus distinctly, because I know much
misapprehension prevails about them.

108

I may indeed very properly say, that the sale, or letting of
church-seats for money, is an act of injustice for which no
defence can be found. Its effect must be, to drive the poor
from that place of worship which has been provided for them
free of all expense. It would exclude them from the house
of God. It would be an actual robbery of the poor for the
accommodation of the rich, with the additional dishonesty
of sparing the pockets of those who are bound by law to
keep their churches in repair.

It may be approved by some, and held up for imitation
as the voluntary system, but, if you come to the real fact, it
is nothing less than the sale of the poor man's property,
without his consent, to gratify a love of ease and senseless
distinction, in a place where no such feeling ought to be
found ; and all this, as I have just said, to relieve themselves
and others from a charge which the law of the land lays
upon them.

As the owner of an ancient messuage may prescribe to a
seat in the body of the church or an aisle annexed to it, so
may the parson, whether impropriator or instituted rector,
maintain a claim to the chancel. But to what extent this
claim can be exercised, whether or not the whole be for his
exclusive use, or the Ordinary can exercise any control over
it, is, I believe, by no means clear. Be that as it may, in a
general way I would observe, as regards both church and
chancel, that the substitution of long seats, whether open at
both ends or not, for the prevailing use of large pews, would
in all cases contribute, not only to an increase of accommo
dation, but in a great degree promote those devotional feel
ings which should ever be found to accompany social
worship. Instead of our kneeling side by side, with the eyes
of the congregation, rich and poor, turned to one object, in
all lowliness of heart, pews do but keep up those distinctions
of rank which in the presence of God we should desire to
lay aside.

Obstacles, I am aware, might prevent the sudden adop
tion of this plan in a general way, or indeed at any time in
very populous districts; but, from its partial use in my own

109

church, and in other parishes where it has been tried, not
only without inconvenience, but I may add with general
approbation, I hope the time is not far distant when we
may all become, as it were, in this respect, members of the
same body, that we may be all one before God, all one in
Christ.

LONDON :

Printed by WILLIAM CLOWES and SONS,
Stamford Street.

Ill

THE whole of this Charge was not delivered at any
one place. Different passages in it were omitted at
different places of Visitation, for the sake of brevity.
Some portions were not delivered anywhere.
Therefore, the Clergy, by requesting the publication
of the Charge, must not be considered as having
made themselves responsible for its contents.

Bishopstowe, September, 1842.

CHARGES

DELIVERED AT HIS SECOND
VISITATION

IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1881,

BY

JAMES RUSSELL

LORD BISHOP OF ELY.

Uonfcon nnfc (Eambrfogt :
MACMILLAN AND CO.

1881

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

I. CHARGE DELIVERED AT THE VISITATION OF THE CLERGY.

Diocesan Synod 2

Diocesan Conference 7

Diocesan Fund 10

Ordinations 14

Baptisms and Confirmations 18

Schools 23

Sunday Schools 24

Holy Communion 28

Missions 31

The New Law of Burial 33

The Royal Commission on the Laws and Courts

Ecclesiastical 41

The Revision of the New Testament 52

Concluding Remarks 60

II. CHARGE DELIVERED AT THE VISITATION OF THE CATHE

DRAL CHURCH.

The Royal Commission on Cathedral Establishments 65

Changes in the Cathedral Body 66

The Cathedral School 67

The Theological College 68

Lectur.es in the Cathedral ib.

Annual Meeting of Chapter and Honorary Canons 69

The Celebration of the Holy Communion ib.

The Minor Canons 70

The Lay Members of the Foundation 71

Concluding Remarks 73

A CHAKGE

DELIVERED AT THE VISITATION" OF THE CLERGY

OF THE DIOCESE OF ELY, IX SEPTEMBER

AND OCTOBER 1881'.

REVEREND BRETHREN,

I meet you again in this Court of Visitation
with humble thankfulness to Almighty God for the

1 The order of proceedings at the Visitation was as follows : —
On the days in the months of April and May (eight in number)
appointed for the Visitation of the Churchwardens at Ely, Cam
bridge, Newmarket, Sudbiuy, Bury St Edmunds, Bedford, Luton,
and Huntingdon, the Churchwardens were admitted to office by
the Chancellor of the Diocese. The Visitation Court was opened
in Church; and, after the Bishop had delivered a short address, the
Churchwardens were called up, and they made their presentments
in person to the Bishop, who enquired into any matter of import
ance which appeared on the presentment, or which was brought
before him by the Churchwardens. During the course of the
Visitation more than one hundred and fifty matters were enquired
into at the several Courts.

On the days in the months of September and October (four in
number) appointed for the Visitation of the Clergy at Bury St
Edmunds, Bedford, Huntingdon, and Cambridge, the Visitation
13. 0. I

continued harmony, and, I trust, quiet progress, of
this Diocese, but with a deepening sense of the
difficulties gathering around the Church of England
as an Establishment, difficulties the more formidable,
if, as I believe, they spring not from passing causes,
but are the necessary issues of that period of the
nation's growth at which we have arrived and of the
development of its political life.

Diocesan Synod.

At such a time I should have been glad to have
met you in connection with this Visitation in a
Diocesan Synod, where the voices of the Presbytery
and not the voice of the Bishop alone might have been
heard. A desire for the assembling of such a Synod
has been expressed in several quarters, not however
so generally as to prevent my feeling that to have
convoked it on this occasion would have taken the
Diocese by surprise. I have therefore j udged it best
to content myself with opening the subject to you
now, and indicating my readiness, if God spare me,
to take the necessary steps, if upon reflection it
should seem expedient. The detailed arrangements
of the Synod would have carefully to be determined

Court was opened in Church and after the Clergy had answered to
their names (those not answering and not excused attendance being
twice called) the Bishop delivered his charge. Before the opening
of the Courts on the Churchwardens' days Morning Prayer was
said ; and before the opening of the Court on the Clergy days
the Holy Communion was celebrated.

in accordance with precedent. I would now call your
attention to some of its leading features.

The Diocesan Synod is undoubtedly amongst the
earliest institutions of the Christian Church. In the
first ages we do not find any special periods assigned
for its assembling ; but whenever important matters
arose, the Bishop, we are told, was accustomed to call
together his Senate or Presbytery that they might
consult together1. At a subsequent period they
were convened twice a year, the use finally adopted
being that they should meet annually.

As to the persons entitled to be summoned, it
seems sufficiently clear that all the Clergy under
the jurisdiction of the Bishop above the grade of
Deacons were constituent members of a Diocesan
Synod. So Van Espen, " Hie nota omnes indis-
tincte Presbyteros ad Synodurn admitti2." These
are summed up in the Reformatio Legum under the
terms "Episcopus cum suis Presbyteris, Parochis,
Vicariis, et Clericis."

The normal place of meeting is the Cathedral
Church ; but it has been said that when from the ex
tent of the Diocese it would be difficult for the Clergy
to meet at a single spot, the Synod may be held
divisionally. " If," says Archbishop Wake, " the
Diocese were small and had but one Archdeaconry
in it, the whole Clergy met together at once for their
Synods. If it were more large the Bishop sometimes
divided his Synod according to the number of his

1 Van Espen, Tit. xvm. Cap. 1.

2 Van Espen, Tit. xvm. Cap. 2.

1—2

Archdeaconries, and held his Diocesan Council at
several times and in several places. But still the
method of proceeding was the same in all, and the
same business done in the one as in the other1."

This business appears anciently to have been
partly judicial and partly legislative. The first act
of the Synod was the hearing complaints whether
from Clergy or Laity2, possibly the origin of the
modern Articles of Enquiry issued to Churchwardens
as representing the Laity, and to the Clergy. These
having been heard, the Bishop published any decrees
which had been made in the Synod of the Province.
Next he put forth his own Constitutions for the
regulation of Diocesan matters, which being ac
cepted by the Synod were of legal force within the
Diocese. Then the Bishop made a Sy nodical Ex
hortation, which survives in the modern Charge,
and so with prayers and benediction dissolved the
Synod.

It is to be carefully noted that a Diocesan Synod
was not a meeting for moving resolutions and
amendments, for divisions into majorities and mino
rities. In it the Bishop not only presided, but him
self alone promulged Constitutions, after gathering
the opinions of his Presbyters thereon3.

These Synods met with varying regularity up to
the Reformation 4. We have mention in Wilkins'
Concilia of three Synods of this Diocese, one held

1 Abp. Wake, State of the Church and Clergy of England,
p. 24. * Ibid.

3 Benedict, xiv. De Syn. Dioc. Lib. xm. Cap. 1.

4 A list of 29 is given in Joyce, Sacred Synods, p. 38, note.

5

by Bishop Langliam in 1364, another by Bishop
West in 1521, another by the same prelate in 1528,
at the Priory of Barnwell. There is extant the
Synodical Address delivered at the first. It treats
in detail of the personal life and morals of the
Clergy as well as of their parochial ministrations.
The records of the Synod at Barnwell include
certain ordinances with regard to matrimonial causes
put forth, it is said, 'toto clero acceptante et con-
sentiente/ the admission of strange Clergy to offi
ciate, then as now a fruitful source of disorder, and
the like1.

That the leaders of the English Reformation had
no intention of discontinuing these Synods is evident2.
The Rcformatio Legum, drawn up by Archbishop
Cranmer, provides3 that the Bishop shall every year
appoint a day and place for holding his Synod.
The rules for holding it are laid down, the assembling
in Church, the saying of Litanies, the Celebration of
the Holy Communion. The subjects to be treated of
are specified, viz. corruption of doctrine, excess or
defect in ceremonial observances — quaecunque ad
utilitatem populi Dei visa fuerint pertinere — and the
results to be hoped for are thus stated4, " A Synod
is the fittest cure for negligence and errors. Hereby
the bands of charity between Bishop and Clergy will
be preserved and amplified He will have a closer

1 Wilkins' Concilia, vol. 3, pp. 59, 693, 712.

2 See Joyce, op. cit. p. 39.

3 Reformat™ Legum, Cap. 20, 21, 22.

4 Ibid., Cap. 19.

knowledge of and intercourse with his Clergy : they
will be able to hear him, and when occasion demands
put questions to him."

If, Brethren, our Reformers were even in some
small degree right in these anticipations, if only a
portion of the fruit expected by them might be
gathered from such a meeting of the Bishop and
his Clergy, it would indeed be well worth our while
to fall back here too upon the old lines, and call
our Diocesan Synod into fresh life ; and I know
not why they should have been wholly wrong.

" Diocesan Synods," says a learned writer1, "are
represented amongst us at this day by Episcopal
Visitations, and it is worthy of consideration whether
a closer adherence to the primitive model would
not render such assemblies of greater practical
advantage." You see at a glance the points of
similarity and dissimilarity. In both Synod and
Visitation presentments are made of the condition
of the several parishes — in both the Bishop and
Clergy meet for a solemn act of worship — in both
there is the Bishop's Exhortation, reviewing the state
of the Diocese, and giving counsel and direction for
the better fulfilment of the work of the Ministry.
What the Visitation allows no room for is, the
acceptance and sealing of the Bishop's utterances
by the voice of the Presbytery and the clothing
them thereby with the authority which is derived
from a general assent of the great body of the
Clergy making the conclusions of their Father in
1 Joyce, Sacred Synods, p. 36.

God their own, and so going forth to execute them,
not as a rule enjoined by another, but as the out
come of their own minds after uniting in Prayer
and Holy Communion and invocation of the Blessed
Spirit.

I leave the whole subject to your consideration,
adding only the expression of my own belief that if
those controverted points of doctrine and ceremonial
which have disturbed us of late had been thus dealt
with at the outset by minds attuned by recent acts
of worship, instead of being rudely sifted in the
cold ungenial atmosphere of law-courts, many a
misunderstanding would have been cleared up, many
a prejudice softened, many an unwise course aban
doned. We should have been spared the spectacle
of holiest things being weighed, not in the Balance
of the Sanctuary, but as mere subtleties of historical
research ; and the Clergy, by the insensible influences
of counsel taken together under the majestic shadow
of the Church of God might have ere now been
consolidated in unity of spirit.

Diocesan Conference.

The transition is short from a Diocesan Synod
to a Diocesan Conference. A Conference is, you
will have seen, anything but identical with a Synod,
but it is a most valuable supplement to a Synod.
The meetings of a Conference are admirably fitted
to nourish the flame of Church life, and to instruct
the mind of the Bishop as to the opinions of
the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese formed after

joint debate. Our own Conference has met annu
ally with unbroken regularity through the long
period of eighteen years. One result of its assem
bling was lately brought under my notice by a
distinguished layman who had been a member of
Conference in its earlier days, but had for eight years
ceased to be a member. On again, at the close
of that period, taking his seat amongst us, he ex
pressed himself to me as being especially struck by
the growth of the spirit of toleration. "The Con
ference/' he said, "had markedly developed that great
qualification of a deliberative assembly — the dispo
sition to listen patiently and to argue without
passion; so that topics which a few years before
could not have been discussed without heat, were now
debated with calmness and kindly consideration for
each other by men of the most opposite opinions."

The chief subject which has recently employed
our Ely Conference has been that of Cathedral
Reform. When it was announced that a Royal
Commission would be issued to enquire into the
state of these Foundations, the Chapter of Ely at
once took the Diocese into confidence. At the Con
ference of 1879, on the motion of Dr Lowe, Canon
Residentiary, seconded by the Dean, a committee,
consisting of the Chapter, the Chancellor of the
Diocese, together with certain lay and clerical mem
bers of the Conference, was appointed to consider
and report upon the relations of the Cathedral to
the Diocese. During the next year the Committee
held nine fully attended meetings under the presi-

dency of the Lord-Lieutenant of Cambridgeshire,
and presented a very careful Report, which, having
been adopted with amendments by the Conference
of 1880, was laid before the Royal Commission.
Amongst the chief recommendations were :

(1) That the Canons should reside nine months
every year, subject to a dispensing power in the
Bishop, for purposes of Diocesan or general Church
work.

(2) That the Bishop should be enabled, after
consulting with the Dean and Chapter, to impose
special duties upon every Canon nominated by him
self, which duties should thereupon be of statutable
obligation.

(3) That provision should be made for the com
pulsory retirement of a Canon incapacitated by age
or infirmity.

(4) That a General Chapter, including the Arch
deacons and Honorary Canons, should be constituted
to meet annually under the Bishop's presidency.

How far these recommendations may be adopted
by the Royal Commission or be incorporated into
the Statutes of the Foundation is at present un
known. In the meanwhile our Cathedral Body
have not, in regard to several points, waited until
the proposed changes should become legally obli
gatory. The General Chapter (not at present en
titled to the name but constituted as proposed), has
met twice at my invitation, and has advised with
me on sundry matters of Diocesan administration.

The Dean and four of the Canons Residentiary

10

have undertaken sermons and courses of sermons
in some of the principal towns of the Diocese, as
Cambridge, Bury St Edmunds, Bedford, Luton and
Sudbury. Three Canons are now in constant resi
dence at Ely, one of whom has been giving himself
for the last five years to the work of our Theological
College.

Three courses of Lectures on different epochs
of Ecclesiastical History have been delivered in
successive years by the Dean, Canon Kennedy and
Canon Luckock.

Diocesan Fund.

The Diocesan Fund has continued its operations,
and the dispensing its Grants has formed a promi
nent part of the 'business of the annual Conference.
Since my last Visitation five new Churches have
been built and 46 Churches restored. In this
Diocese, with a diminishing rural population and
few large towns, our task is not so much that of
building additional Churches, as of restoring and
maintaining those which our forefathers have be
queathed to us. There are however certain places
in which the formation of new Parishes or the
building of District Churches has become needful.
Such are Cambridge. Bedford, and Luton. I would

O ' J

especially direct attention to Luton which contains
more than 30,000 inhabitants with only three
Churches, of which two are very slenderly endowed.
We have moreover a difficulty of our own to en
counter. The Fen country forms a peculiar feature

1 1

of this Diocese. In Fen districts are to be found
small settlements of labouring families remote from
any Church and with very imperfect road communi
cation. I know of no way of keeping religion alive
amongst these isolated groups save by building
simple and inexpensive Mission Rooms in which a
service may be conducted and a Sunday-school
held by a Lay-reader. This plan has been adopted
in several instances with happy results, and I believe
that our Diocesan Fund cannot be more usefully
employed than in multiplying such outposts of the
Church. There is one point which I would urge
upon you, Reverend Brethren, in having recourse
to these Mission Rooms, namely that you should
not leave them entirely to lay ministrations but
should yourselves periodically visit them to celebrate
the Holy Communion and to baptize. This is of
much importance lest those whom we desire to help
should through the very method employed live and
die without any knowledge of the Sacraments of the
Gospel or any participation of their grace.

To all such works of Church extension, to the
maintenance of Curates, and the Religious Inspection
of Schools, the Diocesan Fund has granted during
the last four years the sum of £7,400. I would
press upon the Clergy the importance of sus
taining the income of the Fund, which in fact
constitutes our main resource for every kind of
Church work. 1 heartily thank the majority of my
brethren for their compliance with the request in my
Pastoral Letter for an annual offertory ; but I am

12

bound also to point out that there are more than
one hundred parishes from which no contributions are
received. It is scarcely possible that a sermon should
be preached on the subject and nothing collected.
I can therefore only conclude that in those parishes
the Clergy do not bring the matter before their people.
I most earnestly remonstrate against this standing
aloof from the corporate action of the Diocese. Our
Diocesan system must rank low in our esteem if it
cannot secure united action in so plain a work of
Christian piety as this. It is not, let me remind
you, the smallness of the sum which your congrega
tion can contribute which justifies your withholding
from them the opportunity of casting their mite into
the common treasury, whilst you lose a great oppor
tunity of teaching them the principle of joint action
as Churchmen — a principle, let me say, which we of
the Church of England have been too apt to let slip,
and which we may possibly in no distant day bitterly
regret not having trained our congregations to re-
^nize.

I have indicated that in this Diocese we have few
parishes requiring sub-division. On the other hand
we have many small parishes which might, in my
opinion, be advantageously consolidated with an ad
joining parish. There are in the Diocese 41 parishes
each with a population less than 200, and nine
parishes each with less than 100 inhabitants. It
would, I believe, be far better that these should not
continue separate incumbencies. The subject has
been forced on my attention by the recent agricul-

tural distress. Several benefices have been vacated,
and failed for a long time to find fresh incumbents;—
and this from a twofold cause, the inadequacy of the
endowment and the fewness of the inhabitants. I
have had benefices left with no available income, the
receipts not covering the outgoings. On the other
hand a clergyman who loves his Holy Vocation and
desires not to waste his life shrinks from settling-
down in a parish of less than 100 souls. What is
there in such a charge to occupy his time ? How
can he work a parish which hardly supplies a Sunday
congregation and affords no material for a school, or
choir, or classes ? He dreads lest his own spiritual
life should deteriorate in such enforced idleness. And
his fear is not wholly groundless. Two, or even three,
such parishes would be more efficiently administered
by a single incumbent with the help of curates, who
would from time to time move on to another field of
labour, than by giving to each its own incumbent
bound down, probably for life, to a post insufficient
to satisfy his mind or to draw forth his spiritual gifts.
The subject demands the consideration of both
Clergy and Laity. I am aware of possible difficulties
with regard to patronage, and it would certainly be
necessary to make the maintenance of a curate or
curates out of the consolidated incomes a legal
obligation. But I scarcely think that these difficul
ties would prove insurmountable, or that Lay Patrons
would refuse to enter into reasonable arrangements,
if the question were put fairly before them in all
its bearings upon the welfare of the Church.

Ordinations.

In reviewing the work of the Diocese I come
first to the Ordinations which have been held. We
here touch the root of the Church system. The
Church of England as a Branch of the Church
Catholic holds the perpetuation of the Apostolic suc
cession of the three-fold ministry through Episcopal
ordination as the primary law of her continued ex
istence. When, as sometimes happens, the Church
of England is branded as narrow and intolerant be
cause she declines to associate with her own clergy
in their ministrations any who have not received
Episcopal ordination, she is no more really in
tolerant than any sect or society is intolerant for
adhering to the fundamental principle on which it is
based. For the principle of Episcopacy is not that
it is one of many ways by which the ministerial
commission is handed on — but that it is the only
way which, coming down to us from the Apostolic
age, has the seal of the first inspired followers of
Jesus Christ. "It has been seen," writes the present
Bishop of Durham, "that the institution of an Epis
copate must be placed as far back as the closing
years of the first century, and that it cannot without
violence to historical testimony be dissevered from
the name of St John1." Without pretending that
the Holy Ghost is not pleased to operate through
other ministries, recognizing thankfully the plain

1 Lightfoot, Dissertation on The Christian Ministry affixed to
his edition of the Epistle to the Philippians, p. 232.

manifestation of His gifts to the members of other
communities which have abandoned the Apostolical
succession, our Church does but maintain what is a
truism on her lips when accepting the language of
Cyprian1, "Episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in
Episcopo," she refuses to dispense with the necessity of
Episcopal Ordination, even in the case of individuals
worthy of all reverence for intellectual power and
spiritual attainments.

It is rather, however, of the preparation for
Holy Orders that I would now speak. In this
Diocese it has long been the custom to require a
University Degree in the Candidates for Ordination.
The rule undoubtedly presses inconveniently in
particular cases, but so long as it can be main
tained, I hold myself to be consulting for the best
interests of the Diocese as a whole in adhering to
it, unless in special cases of extraordinary deserving
in any candidate for knowledge acquired, or past
service rendered to the Church. I will not repeat
the familiar arguments in favour of a University
education for the Clergy — but a few words upon the
present position may not be out of place.

It cannot be denied that the two great
Universities and the several Colleges within them,
have been for some time past loosening their con
stitutional connection with the Church. The re
ligious system of the Church of England is no
longer imbedded in the Collegiate system. I do
not disguise my own deep regret at this dissolution

1 Cyprian, Ep. 66. 7.

of a hallowed incorporation of Faith and Learning.
But here, as in nature and in God's general moral
government, there are compensatory provisions. We
must acknowledge that in our Universities and
Colleges before the recent changes began, the spirit
of living Church manship had become weak in the
midst of the fences which guarded it. Although
there were noble exceptions, individual zeal for
Christ and Christ's Church languished from the
very sense of security. The armour was allowed
to rust by reason of the strength of the entrench
ments. Our defences have now fallen, but their
fall has evoked a large outburst of earnestness, of
vigour, of love. The temple guard finds itself no
longer behind a girdle of fortifications, but on
open ground face to face with the foe. And as
suredly I am not wrong in affirming that amongst
members of the Church resident in the Universities
one result of our losses has been a quickened sense
of personal responsibility and an invigorating of
religious power. A young man coming up to
College now, will meet with, more sympathy and
help from his seniors than heretofore in his efforts to
live soberly, righteously, and godly. It may be
replied that Religion in our Universities is now of
the individual, not of the system, and so has fewer
elements of durability. But what is lost in tra
ditional perpetuity may perhaps be balanced by a
gain in vital force. At any rate I cannot believe
that the hour has yet struck for the Church to take
any steps towards the withdrawal of the candidates

17

for her ministry from the ancient homes of learning
in which her profoundest theologians and holiest
sons have hitherto been trained. The fountains at
which Andrewes and Hooker, Pearson and Butler
drank may yet, I have good hope, be found to yield
wholesome draughts to those who would tread in
their steps. Assuredly no nobler profession could be
made than that which has been deliberately retained
in the new Statutes of my own ancient College.

"Postremo omnis hujus Collegii socios et stu-
diosos vehementer in Domino hortamur ut memores
beneficiorum quae hujus rei gratia a Domino acce-
perint optimis studiis et omni pietati se totos
consecrent : statuta nostra diligenter et fideliter
observent, nullam callidam aut sinistram interpreta-
tionem contra ipsorum sensurn adhibeant sed firma
ac rata habeant, suam et Ecclesise Dei utilitatem
quserentes et omnes conatus ad Domini et Servatoris
nostri gloriam illustrandam conferentes cui cum
Patre et Sancto Spiritu sit omnis honor gloria et
imperium in sa3cula sseculorum1."

I was able four years ago to announce that I had
established a Theological College or Clergy School at
Ely under the Headship of one of the Canons of the
Cathedral. Its purpose is not to supersede education
at the University but to follow it up with a special
preparation of those to be admitted to Holy Orders,
that preparation consisting in careful study of Holy
Scripture and the doctrines of the Church, in ac
quiring some experience in parochial visiting and

1 Draft Statutes of Pembroke College, Cambridge.
B. C. 2

i8

preaching, and in the formation of habits of devotion
and simplicity of living. More than 60 students
have been admitted up to this time. Within the
last three months new College Buildings have been
completed, containing rooms for a Vice-Principal
and 12 students, with Chapel, Hall and Library.

May God accept this offering and preserve it as
the nursery of a faithful ministry through many
generations. Amen.

During the last four years 67 Priests and 74
Deacons have been ordained and I have rejoiced to
note amongst them several who have obtained the
very highest University Honours.

Baptisms and Confirmations.

I have confirmed in the years 1878, '79, '80

5860 males ) .

\ in all 13496-
7627 females )

These numbers shew an increase upon the num
bers confirmed in the like period preceding, but do
not by any means approach a sum-total in propor
tion to the population, nor to that attained in some
other Dioceses not more populous than our own.

A very important question has recently become
prominent, viz. whether there is any increasing
neglect of Holy Baptism. The subject has engaged
the attention of both Houses of Convocation. In
1880 I proposed the question for discussion in the
Run-decanal chapters of this Diocese. Twenty-seven
out of the 33 Rural Deaneries have reported to

19

me, and '(with one exception) to the effect that the
neglect is not an increasing neglect within their
boundaries. The majority of the Deaneries speak of
the average number of Baptisms having been larger
during the last few years, notwithstanding a di
minishing population. In some parishes where the
Baptisms are fewer the cause is described as tem
porary. These answers have been furnished after
careful examination of the registers during the last
five, six, seven, and ten years.

The reports do not, of course, mean that there is
not a serious amount of neglect of this Sacrament
amongst the people. And in the country at large
there can be little doubt of the fact. It was stated
at the Church Congress at Swansea, in 1879, "that
England is the lowest in the scale of Christian na
tions, except perhaps those of North America, in
regard to the administration of the Sacrament of
Baptism1."

In a report lately presented to the Winchester
Diocesan Conference, the general average of Church
Baptisms in a large district, comprehending Ports
mouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight, is given
as about 55 for every 100 births. In the Upper
House of Convocation, the result of more general
investigations was stated to be that, assuming about
70 per cent, of the whole population to belong to the
Church of England, there was a failure in the Mini
stration of Baptism by the Church of 15 in every
hundred. Now making full allowance for the Bap-
1 Vid. Swansea Ch. Congress Report. Rev. G. A. Seymour.

2—2

2O

tisms of Non-conformists amongst the remaining 30
per cent, of the population, it cannot be concealed that
in this ancient Christian kingdom a very considerable
proportion of the people are left unbaptized, and I
would draw your attention to some of the causes
assigned for the neglect, so far as members of the
Church of England are concerned.

i. First must be mentioned the confusion of
Baptism with Registration. This comprehends two
classes of persons, those who are really ignorant of the
difference between Baptizing and Registering the
child, and those who from the teaching of certain non
conformist bodies or from the suggestions of infidelity
wittingly reject the Sacrament of Baptism. A useful
method of counteracting the neglect of ignorance and
carelessness appears to be that the Parish Priest
should procure from the Registrar a monthly list of
births registered (which I am informed may be
obtained at a trifling cost), and, comparing it with his
register of Baptisms, make it a fixed part of his paro
chial work to search for those whom he thus discovers
to be remaining unbaptized. I must also point out
that the evil calls for more careful preaching upon
the privileges of Christian Baptism. We must
remember that unbelief is perpetually seeking to
undermine the faith of our people, as with regard
to other points of Christian doctrine, so also with
regard to Baptism. I cannot help thinking that
our recent controversies about the Holy Eucharist
have drawn off the attention of the Clergy from
the Sacrament of Baptism. There is always a ten-

21

dency, in an age when human thought is in rapid
movement, to leave behind one doctrine in the
effort to grasp another. Baptism is, I believe, far
less preached about than it was forty years ago.
At that time it was uppermost in the minds of
controversialists, and the then recent Registration
Act stimulated the Parochial Clergy, from the sense
of threatened danger, to explain and press upon
their people the nature of the Initiatory Sacra
ment. Other controversies have since arisen. The
Registration Act has been working what was an-

CJ C?

ticipated, but its noiseless operations have ceased
to excite our vigilance, and thus our parishioners,
hearing less about the blessings of the Baptism of
Christ, have been left more open to the influence
of those who decry it, and so have grown more and
more lax in bringing their children to the Font.
It might be well in many parishes to arrange for a
more solemn public administration of the Sacrament
of Baptism upon one Sunday in every month, at a
service of which it should be itself the chief part-
accompanied with the singing of appropriate hymns
and an address to the sponsors and general congre
gation upon the blessings and responsibilities which
Baptism brings with it. Such a periodical solem
nization of Baptism ought not (and this is very
important) to be made an impediment in the way of
parents having their children baptized at any other
time. We should make the Font as easy of access
as possible, while we try to surround it with all that
we can of reverence and impressiveness.

22

A second hindrance, which is that indeed most
generally alleged, is the rule concerning sponsors.
The keeping this rule is a most real difficulty, often
got over at the cost of lowering the respect for the
Sacrament itself through the unfitness of those who
undertake the office. I will not disguise my own
desire for some change in regard to the requirement
of three God-parents for each child. The early
Church prescribed only one — who might be the father
or mother of the child1. Such a modification of the
Rubric would doubtless be a great relief. Mean
while our own Office is explicit as to three spon
sors, and the twenty-ninth Canon further declares that
no one shall be admitted as God-father or God
mother before the said person hath received the Holy
Communion ; the object obviously being to secure as
far as possible religious persons to fulfil the office.
Now our ordinary way of meeting the difficulty has
been to dispense with the observance of the Canon,
and to accept without enquiry any God-parents who
present themselves. I am myself disposed to think
(although I do not here speak authoritatively) that
the preferable course would be to adhere strictly to
the Rubric and Canon as to the number and charac
ter of the sponsors in all Public Baptisms; and to
baptize in the Font privately (when Divine Service
is not going on) any child presented by a Christian
parent for which there is reason to believe that de
vout-minded sponsors cannot be procured to satisfy
the requirement of the Canon: In such cases the

' Bingham, Bk. xi. ch. 8.

23

Minister of the Parish, although baptizing in the
Font, would be ministering Private Baptism in a
case of emergency, and no sponsors would be needed.
He would be careful of course that this concession
should not degenerate into a common neglect of
Public Baptism, and to impress upon the person
bringing any child the responsibility thereby incurred
of training it up in the love of God and Jesus Christ
our Lord.

Schools.

Closely connected with Baptism and Confirma
tion is the subject of Religious Education in our
Day and Sunday Schools.

I have received a memorandum from the Dio
cesan Inspector from which it appears that there has
been a steady increase in the number of Schools
open to his visits. In 1878 the number of Schools
inspected by him was 382. In the present year 416
will have been visited. Of the 552 Church of
England Schools in the Diocese 445 may be con
sidered to be now under Inspection in religious
knowledge. In 239 Schools your returns state that
religious instruction is given by the Clergy them
selves. The advance in this last respect is, I regret
to say, very slight. The religious knowledge is re
ported to me as being on the whole satisfactory. The
work has become gradually more systematic and the
teaching more definite. The action of the Archi-
diaconal Boards in offering a money grant to the
principal Teacher of any School receiving a favour-

24

able report lias operated as a great encouragement to
exertion in the religious teaching.

I am of opinion that it will become more and
more necessary to extend this encouragement. For
indeed Religious Teaching in a school receiving
Government aid has to contend with many difficulties.
The heavy and increasing demands of the Education
Department, the impossibility of assembling the
children in wide country parishes punctually to the
hour, and the consequent loss of part of the short
time allotted to the Religious Lesson, the tendency
to regard this lesson as of secondary importance not
calling for the full exercise of the Teachers' powers —
all these things tell, some more, some less, in different
places, against the perfecting the religious education ;
and, although I know that many of the masters and
mistresses of our National Schools have a conscien
tious sense of the importance of this part of their
work, yet it cannot but be that what pays most
should receive most attention. And on this ground
I think that the Archidiaconal Boards would expend
the money at their disposal most wisely in making it
the interest of the Master or Mistress to bring up
the religious knowledge of their scholars to the
highest standard.

Sunday Schools.

The attention of the whole kingdom was last year
drawn to our Sunday Schools, by the centenary of
their establishment in their present form. I believe

25

this to be the correct way of stating what was done a
hundred years ago. For indeed the Sunday School
is a much older institution. Its germ is found in
the Rubric which directs " the Curate of every
parish diligently upon Sundays and Holy-days openly
in the Church to instruct and examine so many
children of his parish as shall be sent unto him
as he shall think convenient in some part of the
Church Catechism." You have here the Sunday
School as it might be efficiently carried on when
population was scanty and education little advanced.
The change which has passed over England in both
these respects has necessitated an enlarged method
of Sunday catechizing. Hence arose the Sunday
School as it now exists conducted in a separate
building, by a staff of teachers instead of by the
curate alone.

Now it appears to me very essential that we
should endeavour to lift our Sunday Schools to a
more distinct position as an integral part of the
Church machinery. The limitation of the time for
religious instruction in the National School, the
absence of all definite Church teaching from the
Board School, throw us more than ever upon the
Sunday School. It has a further most important
part to perform in reference to those older children
who by passing the necessary standard have become
exempt from the obligation of attendance at the
Day School, and so are in danger of rapidly losing
such religious knowledge as they have there ac
quired.

26

But if the Sunday School is to be thus elevated
in public estimation as the handmaid of the Church,
if it is to be cleared from many of the faults which
have brought it into disrepute, the principles on
which it is renovated must be looked for in the
Church Catechism and the Rubrics pertaining to
it.

Let me allude to some of these principles. — First
the Parish Priest must regard it as his Sunday
School by virtue of his office as the appointed Cate-
chist of the children within his bounds. He should
not only teach in it himself, but cause the Sunday
School Teachers to regard themselves as his deputies.
To this end he should give them privately during
the week the instruction which on the following
Sunday they are to communicate to the children.

A second principle is this. — The Sunday School
must be undisguisedly a Church School. As its
head is the Parish Priest so its object is to train its
scholars to join with the spirit and the understanding
in the worship and ordinances of the Church, to
prepare them for Confirmation and Holy Com
munion. Hence 1 need hardly say all Sunday
School Teachers should be themselves confirmed
and Communicants. They cannot lead on others to
Ordinances from which they themselves hold aloof.
Further, the instructions should be dogmatic and
distinctive. In dealing with young minds the teach
ing which takes root is ever sharp and decisive.
The Catechism is an admirable guide here. It has
always struck me as one of the most remarkable

27

features of the English Information, that amid the
fierce controversies of that troubled era, while the
tremblings of the earthquake which had shattered
oldest institutions were still felt, the Heads of our
Church should have found leisure not only to reform
Liturgies, and set forth Homilies, but to drawT up an
Instruction to be learnt by young children. And
how simple yet profound, how short yet compre
hensive is the outline of doctrine there presented.
In no part of the Prayer-Book is the spiritual system
of the Church, the course of a Christian man's
life, so distinctly laid down. And, my Reverend
Brethren, just in proportion as secular education
dominates in Board Schools and even within our
National Schools drives Religion into a corner, does
it become of increasing importance that we should
fall back upon the old catechetical machinery of the
Church both in the letter and the spirit. The text
book of the Church Sunday School is the Church
Catechism. When some time ago I read the state
ment of a Chaplain of a Gaol1 that out of 50 boys
who had found their way to prison all but two were
discovered to have been Sunday School Scholars,
but that of these only 29 could say the Lord's
Prayer, and only 1 3 repeat the Creed correctly, the
proper deduction appeared to me to be not that
Sunday Schools are a useless institution, but that
very many of them are most feebly conducted, that
a great opportunity is often wasted in idle chatting
with a class, or in teaching the incidents of Old
.' Guardian, June 30, 1880,

28

Testament story, with little or no training in the
principles of our most holy Faith, or the practice of
Christian duties.

In the hope of stimulating the life of our Sunday
Schools, a Diocesan Sunday School Society has been
organized for enrolling the names of Sunday School
Teachers, and thereby giving them a recognized
position as Diocesan officers, for increasing their
efficiency and interest in their work by promoting
periodical meetings amongst themselves in deaneries
and archdeaconries, and gathering them together
once in three years to the Cathedral for common
worship and exhortation.

Similar associations have had a vast influence for
good upon Church choirs. We would try the ex
periment upon our Sunday Schools.

Up to this time 140 parishes have joined the So
ciety : —

In the Archdeaconry of Ely 39

„ Sudbury 23

Bedford 34

„ ,, Huntingdon... 24

„ „ Isle of Ely ... 20

I commend the movement to your sympathy and
cooperation.

Holy Communion.

In my Primary Charge I urged at some length
the more frequent celebration of the Holy Commu
nion in our Parish Churches, and expressed my con-

29

viction that we fall short of the mind of Christ indi
cated by the practice of the Apostles as recorded in
Holy Scripture, unless the Holy Communion form
part of the public worship of every Lord's Day. I am
thankful to find, in examining the answers to my
Articles of Inquiry, a considerable progress in this
respect. There are now in the Diocese

32 Churches in which Holy Communion is cele
brated, less than once a month,
299 „ „ monthly,

94- ., » fortnightly,

119 „ „ weekly,

4 n >, daily.

Upon comparing these returns with those of 1877
I am above all glad to note that instead of there being
70 Churches there are now only 32 which have fewer
than monthly celebrations. I would press with all
the weight of my office upon my brethren the Incum
bents of those 32 Churches not thus to lag behind.
A monthly celebration is, I believe, the least frequent
compatible with spiritual vigour in the Clergy or the
people. In the number of fortnightly Communions,
as well as in weekly, I am glad also to observe a
promising increase. I can quite sympathize with the
feeling which leads many of my brethren to advance
gradually in this matter ; but I can have no sympathy
either with the spiritual sloth or the narrow-minded
ness which takes no step forward, but is content still
to leave God's Board unspread, save upon four or five
Sundays in the year.

30

Consider this Holy Sacrament in either aspect.
" If (I quote the language of Mede1) the Commemo
ration of Christ in the Holy Sacrament is not a bare
remembrance or putting ourselves in mind only (as
is commonly supposed) but a putting God in mind
--if as Christ by presenting His death and satis
faction to the Father continually intercedes for us in
heaven, so the Church on earth semblably approaches
the Throne of Grace by representing Christ unto
His Father in these Holy Mysteries of His Death
and Passion ;" if2 "that which every Christian doth
mentally and vocally when he commends his prayers
to God the Father through Jesus Christ, is done in
the public service of the Church by the Rite which
our Saviour commanded to be used in commemora
tion of Him/' then how may it not abate from the
prevalent force of the prayers of a congregation if
only at rare ' intervals they plead their Saviour's
Death in His own appointed way ? Or to take the
other aspect of this holy Ordinance, if there be
truth in the solemn words of Hooker3, "that this
Sacrament is a true and real participation of Christ
who thereby imparteth Himself as a Mystical Head
unto every one that receiveth Him, that every such
receiver doth thereby incorporate or unite himself
unto Christ, that therein He giveth by the same
Sacrament His Holy Spirit to sanctify them," then
who marvels that the pulse of spiritual life should

1 Mede's Christian Sacrifice, Bk. n. ch. 9.

2 Ibid. Bk. n. ch. 6.

3 Hooker, Bk. v. ch. 67.

beat faint and slow in a Parish where this holy
Food is dispensed with a niggard hand ?

I could not, Reverend Brethren, abstain from
even a second time saying thus much upon this high
subject. I will only add that whilst most anxious
that our people should be not merely a sermon-
hearing but a communicating people, and regarding
the number of Communicants on the roll as good
evidence of the spiritual state of a Parish, I may not
recall my disapproval, formerly expressed, of the
novel practice of evening Communions. I doubt
their legality, I have no doubt as to their inexpe
diency. Their tendency is, I feel persuaded, to
harden into a new source of division, and to bring
about a diminished reverence for this Holy Sacra
ment and a less devout reception of it.

Missions.

I may here mention the letters which I have
received from several of the Clergy as to the effect
of Missions upon the increase of Communicants and
upon the Christian life generally.

From one Archdeaconry I hear "of a Mission
having resulted in bringing many back to Com
munion after long neglect, in the marked earnestness
of many adults who have sought Confirmation and
subsequently become regular Communicants." From
another Archdeaconry the following testimony has
been received : " I am still more than satisfied with

32

the permanent results of our Mission. Our Commu
nicants have increased 20 per cent. The old Com
municants attend more frequently. I find my
better disposed people more ready to help in good
works. -Our District Visitors have increased from 4
to 20."

In other parishes the reports have been less
hopeful. A clergyman writes that the Mission in
his parish had been barren of any permanent results.
Another says, "The point which has struck me is
the greater effect which Missions have on the godly
than on the ungodly. There are very few (so
called) conversions, but the best people try to live
better. This is, we may trust, an abiding good from
Missions, and is likely to work downwards upon
the less godly and so in time to leaven a whole
parish."

I cannot doubt but that the Missions held in
this Diocese have been attended with the Divine bless
ing. And I trust they may continue to be held. I
shall always be glad to advise with the Clergy about
them, and so far as I can to promote their efficiency.
At the same time the varying testimony points to
this, that a parish must be in a certain spiritual
condition to derive the full benefit from a Mission.
Not every parish is in a state to profit by one.
And it hence becomes an important part of the
Parish Priest's responsibility to decide how far his
parish in a given year is a good field for a Mission.
He may lose as much by anticipating the right
moment as by delaying.

Since I last met you in Visitation three events
have occurred in our Ecclesiastical History which
combine to make the record of the last four years
an important chapter in our annals.

The first of these is the change in the Law of
Burial.

The New Law of Burial,

In 1880 our Churchyards, hitherto reserved ex
clusively for the ministrations of the Church of
England, were by Act of Parliament opened for the
performance of any Funeral ceremony, provided only
that it be Christian and orderly, I felt it my duty
in concert with the vast majority of the Parochial
Clergy to oppose this measure. It appeared to me
to be an encroachment upon the inheritance of the
Church for which no adequate cause could be shewn.
By your Returns to my Articles of Inquiry it would
seem that since the new law came into operation,
nearly a year before the returns were made up, the
number of Nonconformist Funerals in our Church
yards had been 64 l throughout the Diocese of Ely.
The Diocese contains 554 parishes. There are few
large towns within our borders, so that the Church
yards are the chief burial places of a population
amounting to more than half a million. It can
scarcely therefore be pleaded that in these counties

1 The special Service authorized by me for use when the Order
fur the Burial of the Dead in the Prayer-book may not be said,
has been used 32 times throughout the Diocese. Two instances
only have occurred in which a variation from the Prayer-book Office
has been made at the desire of the friends of the deceased.

B. C. T,

34

any wide-spread grievance existed under the old
system. I am most glad to have the evidence here
afforded that our Nonconformist brethren do not feel
that desire to substitute other ministrations for those
of the Church in the hour of sorrow and bereavement
which in the heat of the controversy was so often
alleged to prevail. You, Reverend Brethren, are
well aware that not only at the Burial solemnity,
but by the sick bed, your spiritual help is received
with thankfulness by very many who have more or
less separated themselves from us. The fact wit
nesses I think to this, that whilst Nonconformity
in its political aspect is opposed to the Church, Non
conformists as individuals are not irreconcileably
estranged from its Faith, its Ministry, its Worship.
It may be one unexpected result of the recent legis
lation to bring out this point more indisputably to
our view.

It is not however with a past struggle, but with
the future of this subject that I would deal. And
here I earnestly counsel you to follow closely the
lines of the new Burial Act, neither ostentatiously
going beyond its provisions nor attempting in an
unkindly spirit to narrow the liberties which it has
conceded.

Thus, on the one hand, the Act does not touch
the Fabric of the Church or its furniture. The
use of the Bells therefore in connection with the
Burial ceremony cannot be demanded and ought
not to be volunteered. The short peal allowed by
the 6/th Canon to be rung before and after the

35

Burial is a portion of the Burial rite of the Church.
It may be observed here that the legal directions
as to the use of Bells at a funeral are restrictive in
their character. Thus the 6/th Canon does not
order the Bells to be rung, but limits the ringing
to one short peal before and after the Burial. The
Canons of course refer only to the ministers and
ministrations of the Church. The use of Bells at
the time of interment was a custom most probably
connected with a superstitious notion of the power
of consecrated bells to disperse evil spirits — hence
the restrictive nature of the Canon.

Besides the ringing at the Burial, it is ordered
that when any is passing out of life, a Bell shall
be tolled, and the minister shall not then slack to
do his duty. Here the direction is no longer re
strictive. After the party's death, if it so fall out
(the restrictive language is resumed), there is to be
rung no more than one short peal. All this is
wholly unconnected with any Public rite or cere
mony, and therefore what we term the passing bell
should in every case be rung if desired.

In assigning the position of the grave, or in
allowing Burials on Sunday, Christmas Day, and
Good Friday, no distinction should be made be
tween Church people and Nonconformists. It is
most expedient to discourage all funerals on these
days, but in so doing the principle should be applied
to all alike.

Under the isth Section of the Act, in any case
(i) when the Order for the Burial of the Dead

3—2

36

may not be used, and (2) in any other case at
the request of the relation, friend, or legal repre
sentative having charge of or being responsible for
the Burial, it is lawful for the Minister to use such
Service consisting of Prayers taken from the Book
of Common Prayer and portions of Holy Scripture
as may be prescribed or approved by the Ordinary.

This Section gives scope for two Rubrics agreed
upon by both Houses of our Convocation in 1879.

In the first case, that of the unbaptized, excom
municate, and such as have laid violent hands upon
themselves, the Convocation of Canterbury framed
with much care the following Rubric.

" It shall not be unlawful for the Minister at the
request of the kindred or friends of the deceased to
use after the body has been laid into the earth
prayers taken from the Book of Common Prayer and
portions of Holy Scripture approved by the Ordinary
so that they be not part of the Order for the
Burial of the Dead nor of the Order for the adminis
tration of Holy Communion."

The principles upon which this Rubric was
formed were these. Convocation was willing to pro
vide consolation for those who should bring to Burial
children or adults who, whether from the fault of others
or their own had died unbaptized, and at the same
time it desired to mark the fact that they had not
been admitted into the Visible Church by the Sacra
ment of Baptism. In such cases then the corpse is
not to be carried into the Church, but to be borne
directly and in silence to the Grave. At the Grave

37

the Minister should receive it, and after it has been
laid into the earth begin a Service of Psalms, Scrip
ture Lessons and Prayers, avoiding the use of any
portions of the Communion Office or of the Order
for the Burial of the Dead.

In accordance with these principles and being
desirous of abiding by the provisions of the Synod of
the Province, I, as I have already intimated in a
Pastoral Letter and now more formally declare in
this Court of Visitation, do approve of the following
Service for use in this Diocese in the case of the
unbaptized and others whom it may concern.

ORDER OF BURIAL SERVICE.

The Priest meeting the Body at the Grave shall,
after it has been laid into the earth, say one or more
of these Psalms :—

Psalm xxiii., xxv., cxxx.

Lesson, St John v. 25 — 29 or 1 Thess. iv. 13
ad Jin.

" Lord, have mercy," &c.

The Lord's Prayer.

Collects for Sixth Sunday after Epiphany, Fourth
and Twelfth Sundays after Trinity.

" The Grace of our Lord," &c.

In the second case contemplated by the Act, that
in which the proper Order for the Burial of the
Dead is directed to be used, but of which it may

38

seem expedient to omit portions, I authorize for use
in this Diocese whenever the relatives, friends, or legal
representative of the deceased desire it, the shortened
Form recommended by Convocation, viz. The three
Sentences to be said on meeting the Corpse at the en
trance of the Church-yard, with the usual Psalms and
Lessons after coming into Church, at the Grave the
Sentences beginning " Man that is born of a woman,"
&c., to be followed directly by the words, " Lord, have
mercy," &c., The Lord's Prayer, and The Grace of our
Lord.

It is necessary that I should now say something
as to the future provision of Burial-grounds. And
here I strongly advise you in no case to think of
enlarging the Church-yard. When a Church-yard is
full you should apply to the Secretary of State for
an order to close it. The Parishioners should then
take the necessary steps for electing a Burial Board
and forming a Cemetery. If the Cemetery adjoin the
Church-yard, the old boundary-wall of the Church
yard should be preserved and an independent en
trance into the new Cemetery should be obtained.
In this Cemetery there need henceforth be in practice
no severance of different portions, one to the ex
clusive use of the Church, one to the use of Noncon
formists. I myself sincerely rejoice at this. In my
Primary Charge I expressed a hope that the spectacle
of rival chapels which obtrude themselves in our
present cemeteries, each with its own burial-ground,
would not be perpetuated. But the making the
whole Cemetery common to all involves in my judg-

39

ment the disuse of the episcopal act of Consecration.
Consecration is not the imparting any intrinsic holi
ness to the soil. It is the separating and setting apart
of ground for the burial of the dead according to the
Rites of the Church of England. If then no part of a
public cemetery can henceforth be so set apart, Conse
cration has no longer any effect. I might add that
a Bishop has no locus standi for assuming to dedi
cate by a Church ceremonial what is to be no more
for the use of Church people than of Nonconformists,
who do not desire, even if they do not dislike, such
consecration. An episcopal act solemnly affecting
to set apart half a cemetery does but embarrass
an otherwise clear position. Viewed in one way it
seems to me a fiction — professing to set apart for
special uses what can no longer be so set apart.
Viewed in another way it is an intrusion of Church
offices into ground which belongs not to the Church
alone, but equally to Nonconformists.

1 may add that no practical inconvenience can
result from the disuse of the solemnity of Consecra
tion. The Burial Acts empower a Burial Board to
obtain a licence from the Archbishop which, in regard
to all secular arrangements, has the legal effect of
Consecration.

Let me make in conclusion a few remarks on the
general subject. The throwing open the Church
yards, if we would form a just estimate of its import
ance, must be considered, not as an isolated event,
but in connection with a long series of Statutes tend
ing to sever the bands which unite Church and State.

40

We are apt to regard Disestablishment as a great
revolution, to be begun and ended by a single le^is-

' •/ O O

lative enactment. The truth rather is that Dises
tablishment has been proceeding during the last fifty
years. The process began with the repeal of the Test
Acts in 1828. The Roman Catholic Emancipation
Act followed. Then came successively the Marriage
Acts, the Acts withdrawing Matrimonial and Testa
mentary causes from the jurisdiction of the Ecclesias
tical Courts, the abolition of compulsory Church
Rates, the opening the old Universities arid Colleges
to Nonconformists. Many of these changes were in
my opinion just, others rendered necessary by the
diversity of religious creeds. But beyond doubt all
were steps in the dissolution of the union between
the Church and State. And indeed it has been a
most gracious Providence which has thus spread the
process over half a century. Hereby the Church has
been allowed time to quicken her spiritual energies,
to strengthen the things which remained and were
ready to die. During this whole period she has been
learning under the Divine Hand to stand alone.

I would not have you suppose me to say that the
complete divorce between the State and the Church
of England is not a consummation to be prayed
against and striven against. An established Church
has an immense purchase in grasping the masses of a
people — for leavening that central zone of the popu
lation which lies midway between the frost of un
belief and the fervour of religious zeal. This has not
sufficient spiritual vitality to choose between rival

sects. It falls under the influence of an Established
Church, and by that influence is drawn upward to a
certain level of faith and practice. Nor is it of slight
importance that the broad surface of a great nation
should be coloured although but faintly with the hue
of Christianity. Human life is rendered more sacred,
social order more secure, by even a thin outspread of
religious feeling, and this general religious senti
ment an established Church can diffuse more widely
than any other machinery. None the less is it true
that the establishment of the Church may be pur
chased at too dear a cost. It would be a fatal error
in our eagerness to preserve the Establishment to
peril one jot or tittle of the doctrine or discipline of
the Catholic Church. Some well-intentioned schemes
of Church Reform appear to me to be fatally open
to this objection ; but whatever be our estimate of
the value of the existing union between the Church
and State, and the chances of its permanent endur
ance, we may surely thank God for having given us
warning, taking away at considerable intervals one
by one our earthly stays, and aiding us as each was
removed to discern more clearly the spiritual charac
ter of the Church, as a source of strength with which
no spoiler can intermeddle and in which we may yet,
whatever befall, speak not in vain to this people.

The Royal Commission on the Laws and Courts
Ecclesiastical.

The second event which bids fair to mark this as
an important epoch in English Church History is

42

the grant of a Royal Commission to enquire into
the Laws and Courts Ecclesiastical.

On the loth February last the following Resolu
tion, on the motion of the Bishop of Peterborough,
was carried unanimously in the Upper House of the
Convocation of Canterbury.

"Whereas this House has received a Report from
the Lower House on the relations between Church
and State and also a Report on Clergy Discipline,
and whereas many members of the Church have
from time to time expressed their strong dissatisfac
tion with the present constitution of the Courts
Ecclesiastical, and whereas the laws relating to
Clergy Discipline are in many respects in need of
amendment, this House requests His Grace the
President to pray Her Majesty to issue a Royal
Commission of Inquiry into the said Laws and the
Constitution of the said Courts with a view to the
full statement and consideration of all objections and
to the reform of whatever may be shewn to be
amiss1."

This Resolution must be regarded as admitting-

<~> o

that the dissatisfaction alluded to had some fair
reasons for existence. It is otherwise scarcely con
ceivable that the House would have made it a
ground of application to the Crown. There has in
fact been imperceptibly advancing through the last
fifty years a change in the whole system of our
Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence, the result of which has

1 Chronicle of Convocation.

43

been to leave the Bishop's Court little more than a
shadow and so to transmute the Provincial Courts
as to suggest serious doubts whether they have
preserved their identity with their former self. It
is scarcely to be wondered at that many minds have
been perplexed whilst living and acting in such
a transition period, or that the perplexity should
have taken the form of demurring to the spiritual
authority of the newly-constituted tribunals and the
consequent obligation of their decisions in foro con-
sciential. That such has been the case is demon
strated by the painful circumstance that for the first
time for many generations in this kingdom we have
seen more than one clergyman of unblemished
character and acknowledged devotion to the duties of
his sacred calling imprisoned for conscience' sake. A.t
such a crisis the application for a Royal Commission
to review the Laws and Courts Ecclesiastical seems
a wise and constitutional step and its appointment a
gracious act on the part of the Crown.

(a) With regard to the Supreme Court of Appeal
dissatisfaction has been long since authoritatively
expressed. In 1850 Bishop Blomfield introduced a
Bill into the House of Lords which he thus described :
"The principle embodied in the Bill is that the
decision of purely spiritual questions should be left
to spiritual Judges." And to the objection that
Bishops might prove very incompetent Judges he
replied, "This may be a very good reason for requir
ing some change in the mode of appointing Bishops,
but not for depriving them of their legitimate juris-

44

diction and inherent rights when they have been
appointed to their office."

In the same debate1 the then Primate of Eng
land, Archbishop Sumner, said " It was chiefly owing
to the defective constitution of the Court of Appeal
that the Church now stood in a position of some
difficulty. It could never be satisfactory that ques
tions relating to the doctrines and discipline of the
Church should be submitted to a tribunal of laymen."
The note thus struck has never been suffered to die
away. The protest then made by those highest in
the government of the Church, as it had been antici
pated by Bishop Gibson2, has been continued up to
the present time. That the irregularity has been felt
not by High Churchmen only is evident from the
language, above quoted, of Archbishop Sumner. The
variety of changes in the Court advocated at different
times, — now that Bishops should be altogether with
drawn from the Court, now that they should be
added as assessors (the plan which has at present
the sanction of law), now that all doctrinal points
should be referred to Theological Experts, witness
indeed to the difficulties inherent in the subject, but
are none the less manifestations of the consciousness
of the Church that in her present condition there is
something radically amiss.

It is an unworthy suggestion that objections to
the Court have been made only by those who have
been cast in their suit. It has given decisions

1 Hansard, House of Lords Debates, 1850.

2 Gibson's Codex. Introductory Discourse.

45

(notably in the case of Heath and in some Articles
of the Westerton case), which have been accepted by
the whole Church, but it is, I believe, correct to
affirm that the feeling as to the unsound constitution
of the Court itself has not thereby been affected.
Nor indeed ought it, as appears to me, to have been
affected. For it is not true that in this matter all
that we want is a Court which will work well. If no
fundamental principle be contravened, certainly no
thing more is required. But the dissatisfaction now
as formerly so strongly felt arises from the con
viction that a fundamental principle has in the
drift of three centuries been receded from, the prin
ciple that "when any cause of the Law Divine
comes in question it should be declared, interpreted
and shewed by that part of the body politic called
the spiritualty1."

Nor is the principle saved by the oft- repeated plea
that the Supreme Court does but interpret Rubrics
and Services compiled long ago by the spiritualty.

I et me quote the words of a great master of
legal science which bear directly on this point.

"We in England (says Sir H. Maine) are well
accustomed to the extensive modification and im
provement of law by a machinery which in theory is
incapable of altering one jot or one line of existing
Jurisprudence. The process by which this virtual
legislation is effected is not so much insensible as
unacknowledged. When a group of facts comes
before an English Court for adjudication, the whole
1 Preamble of 24 Henry VIII. c. 12.

46

course of discussion between the Judge and the ad
vocates assumes that no question is or can be raised
which will call for the application of any principles
but old ones or of any distinctions but such as have
been long since allowed. Yet the moment the judg
ment has been rendered and reported we slide un-
avowedly and unconsciously into a new language
and a new train of thought. We now admit that the
new decision has modified the law. The rules ap
plicable have (to use the very inaccurate expression
sometimes employed) become more elastic. In fact
they have been changed. A clear addition has been
made to the precedents, and the canon of law elicited
by comparing the precedents is not the same with
that which would have been obtained if the series of
cases had been curtailed by a single example1."

We cannot follow the series of Judgments which
have been delivered by the Final Court of Appeal
during the last thirty years upon Doctrine and Ritual
without perceiving that in effect a large modification
of the law of the Church has resulted. The language
of the ancient formularies no longer stands alone. It
is accompanied with a voluminous comment which
authoritatively contracts or widens it, as the case
may be. The account which Sir H. Maine gives of
the process under which in ancient Home the "Re-
sponsa Prudentum " modified the Decemviral Law
describes, without the need of altering a word, the
process which through the recommendations made
to the Crown by the Judicial Committee has gone on
1 Sir H. Maine, Ancient Law, p. 32.

47

with reference to the Formularies of the Church of
England. " The authors of the New Jurisprudence
during the whole process of its formation professed
the most sedulous respect for the letter of the Code.
They were merely explaining it, deciphering it,
bringing out its full meaning, but then by piecing
texts together, by adjusting the law to states of facts
which actually presented themselves, and by specu
lating on its possible application to others which
might occur, by introducing principles of interpreta
tion derived from the exegesis of other written docu
ments which fell under their observation, they educed
a vast variety of canons which had never been dreamed
of by the compilers of thn Twelve Tables and which
were in truth rarely or never to be found there1."

(6) As to the Provincial Courts I will not
repeat what I said in my Primary Charge. The four
years which have since elapsed have only strengthened
my conviction that the restoration of peace and good
order to the Church is hopeless until the changes in
troduced into the ancient constitution of these Courts
by the Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874 shall
be repealed and the appointment of the Judge by the
sole act of the Metropolitan and in accordance with
the provisions of Canon 127 be restored.

(c) The reconstruction of the Diocesan Court
is a question of more difficulty and raises many im
portant considerations. I can only now touch upon
one of these points. It is indisputable that in the
earliest form of Diocesan Court the Bishop was him-

1 Ancient Law, p. 34.

48

self the Judge. In the I2th century, owing, it is
said, partly to the contests then commencing be
tween Bishops and Archdeacons as to the limits
of their respective jurisdictions, partly to the intro
duction of forms borrowed from the Roman Codes,
the Bishops began to appoint 'Officials' to assist
them in their Court1. The first recorded holder of
the office of ' Official Principal' in this Diocese is
Robert de Iwarby in 1225. The English Bishops
by degrees transferred to their officials the entire
jurisdiction of their Courts, with one exception re
cognized in Canon 122, which requires that sentences
of deprivation and deposition should be pronounced
by the Bishop in person.

It is also worthy of remark that in this Diocese
the Bishop has not parted with his power of sitting
in his own Court. In the patent of the Official
Principal that power is still reserved to the Bishop.

During the present reign great changes have
been made. The Church Discipline Act restored
the Bishop's personal jurisdiction, but at the cost
of the virtual extinction of his ancient Consistorial
Court, which henceforward retained no jurisdiction
over the Clergy in criminal cases. The Public
Worship Regulation Act established an alternative
procedure in cases of Ritual. Under both these
Acts (and under no other can the Clergy be sub
jected to legal proceedings in the Ecclesiastical

1 Fournier, Les Officialites au Moyen Age, p. 8. For this
reference and other legal information on this head I am indebted
to the Chancellor of the Diocese.

49

Courts) the Bishop is possessed of a veto upon such
proceedings. I consider it essential to the peace
and well-being of the Church that this power should
be continued in his hands.

We await, not without anxiety, the Report of
the Commission, and the action which may be taken
thereon by Parliament. We do not forget that even
with the most perfect legal machinery unsatisfactory
results may follow, especially when the interpretation
of the law depends in any degree upon the meaning
and value of ancient historical documents. In the
domain of natural science who dares to limit the
facts which even now stand upon the threshold of our
knowledge awaiting the moment of our recognition.
So in the science of History, we know not what may
yet be found in the unexplored records of the past.
A recent decision of the Judicial Committee deter
mined upon the materials before them that a certain
somewhat obscure document known as the Adver
tisements of Elizabeth is still of legal authority.
Since that decision additional historical material
has been discovered making against that conclusion,
and further evidence may still be forthcoming which
will place the question beyond dispute. No reform
of Ecclesiastical Judicature can ensure us against
erroneous judgments in matters of this kind. None
the less important does it appear to me — important
for our position in Christendom as a Branch of
Christ's Holy Catholic Church, important for the
effective working of laws which from their very
nature, pro salute animce, look not merely to the

p.. c. 4

50

outward act but to the inner conscience, that a way
should be found to reconstitute the Provincial and
Diocesan Courts in accordance with sound Eccle
siastical principles, and above all to frame such a
Court of Final Appeal as may leave free scope for
the action of the Royal Supremacy, and of the in
alienable authority of the Church in controversies
of Faith.

In seeking this we are seeking no new thing.
Through many centuries the Imperial authority and
the Ecclesiastical worked conjointly, and the Faith
was handed down to us often assailed, yet still
inviolate. A court is not less a spiritual court
because it is motioned by the Civil Magistrate, else
were the first four General Councils not spiritual
assemblies, for they were undoubtedly convened by
the reigning Emperor. And on the other hand, the
Imperial authority was never thought to be wounded
by referring controversies of doctrine to the Pro
vincial Synods, or in extraordinary emergencies, to
General Councils.

Nor, again, are we contending for anything
opposed to the principles of the Reformation settle
ment. It has been said that the famous preamble
to the great Statute 24 Henry VIII. which speaks
so emphatically of the prerogative of the body
spiritual to decide and interpret in all questions
of the Law Divine, must not be pressed as though
its object were to set forth the mutual relations
of the spiritualty and temporalty within the realm,
and not rather to vindicate the independence of

both against the Roman claims. But it so hap
pens that we possess in the Reformatio Legum
an almost contemporaneous comment upon this
preamble. It is the work of thirty-two Royal
Commissioners, including Cranmer, appointed to
compile a code of Ecclesiastical Law for the Re
formed Church. In Cap. XL De Appellationibus,
it provides explicitly for an appeal to the King's
Majesty, " quo cum fuerit causa devoluta (it proceeds)
earn vel concilio provinciali defmiri volumus si
gravis sit causa vel a tribus quatuorve episcopis
a nobis ad id constituendis." Whether intending
it or not the Commissioners of Edward VI. have
here certainly thrown into practical shape the
abstract principle laid down in the Act of Henry
VIII. We cannot be fairly charged with seeking
to alter the Reformation Settlement in seeking to
give living force to these recommendations.

Nor lastly, are we aiming at what should be
impracticable. I am well aware of the delicate re
lations between Church and State in an age when
the lawfulness of such relationship is challenged,
when the social system is as complicate as our own,
and civil and ecclesiastical interests are so closely
intertwined, I am acutely sensible of the force of the
argument as to the special fitness of the legally
trained mind for judicial investigations, although I
do not believe that in theological questions, lawyers
are necessarily unimpassioned arbiters and inac
cessible to any considerations of expediency. But
after long and earnest thought I can perceive no

4—2

52

other course open to us as Churchmen than to
take our stand upon the principle that whensoever
a doctrine of our Holy Faith is involved in any
cause the determination of such doctrine should be
referred to the formal hearing and judgment of the
Episcopate. To abandon this principle from distrust
as to its practical working is to distrust the pledged
guidance of the Supreme Bishop through the
Blessed Spirit. It is to launch forth upon an un
tried sea in which we are met as by counter- currents
with a multitude of theories and devices which do
but render our whole course uncertain. It cannot
surely be beyond the wisdom of the Church and State
of England, whilst recognizing the ancient principle,
to fence it with such provisions as shall maintain the
rights of the Crown and give to the subject assurance
that justice is done.

The Revision of the New Testament.

The third event which signalizes this period of
our Church History is the publication of a Revised
Version of the New Testament. The movement ori
ginated with the Convocation of Canterbury, and is
not the least among the results of the revival of the
active functions of that body.

The earliest germ of this work is, I believe,
traceable to a notice of motion given by our own
lamented Canon Selwyn in the Lower House as far
back as 1856, and renewed by him from year to year,
until in 1870 the late Bishop of Winchester carried
a Resolution in the Upper House for a joint Com-

53

mittee to report upon the desirableness of a Revision
of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures1.
Upon receiving their Report in the course of the
same year, both Houses passed Resolutions to the
effect that such Revision was desirable, and that a
body of their own members should be nominated to
undertake the work with liberty to invite the co-oper
ation of any persons eminent for Scholarship, to
whatever nation or religious body they might belong.
The origin of the present Revision is thus more
distinctly ecclesiastical than that of the Translation
of the Holy Scriptures now in use ; although in the
inviting the co-operation of persons not members of
the Church, it departed from the more exclusive
precedent of the i yth century. The Version of 1 6 1 1
took its rise from the Hampton Court Conference
held in the presence of James I. At this Conference
Dr Reynolds, who, although he lived and died in
the Communion of the Church, appeared in that
assembly amongst the representatives of the Puritan
section, complained that " the Version of the Scrip
tures now extant did not come up to the meaning
and force of the original2." The King seems to have
embraced with much eagerness the implied sugges
tion for a new Version. The method to be pursued
in such a work was, we are told, laid down by
himself. He would have the proposed Revision
made by the most eminent in the Universities.
After this it should pass the test of the Bishops and

1 Chronicles of Convocation, 1870, pp. 164, 211, 370.

2 Collier's Eccles. Hist. Vol. v. p. 285.

54

other learned ecclesiastics. It should then be laid
before the Privy Council, and in the last place
ratified by the King's Majesty. The whole National
Church should thereupon be obliged to make use of
this Version and no other.

This programme was not, so far as appears, fully
carried out. The task was entrusted by the King to
"certain learned men to the number of four and
fifty1." These were arranged in six divisions or
companies, to each company certain Books being
assigned, and the principles on which they were to
proceed being laid down in fourteen " Instructions."
The Revision was completed in three years. But
we have no evidence of the other steps in the Royal
scheme having been followed out. There is no record
of the work being submitted to the Bishops or laid
before the Privy Council — nor, what is to us more
important, is there conclusive evidence of its use
having been imposed upon the Church as the sole
lawful Version. It appears now (I am quoting the
language of the present Bishop of Durham), "to be
an established fact (so far as any fact in history
which involves a comprehensive negative can be
regarded as established) that the Revised Version
never received any final authorization either from
the ecclesiastical or civil powers, that it was not
sanctioned either by the Houses of Parliament or of
Convocation, or by the King in Council. The
Bishops' Bible still continued to be read in Churches :
the Geneva Bible was still the familiar volume of

1 Vide Letter of King James to the Abp of Canterbury.

55

the fire-side and the closet — The Revised Version
states on its Title-page that it is appointed to be read
in Churches, but we are not told by whom or how
it was appointed. As the copies of the Bishops' Bible
used in the Churches were worn out, they would
probably be replaced by the Revised Version. . . .
This seems to have been the only advantage which
was accorded to it1."

It has also been pointed out that Bishop An-
drewes, even in preaching before the King some
thirteen years after the issue of the Version of 1611,
does not read his text from that Version2.

On the other hand no less an authority than the
present Lord Chancellor has written that "During
above two hundred years the Version of 161 1 has been
universally treated as being what it purported to be
when first issued in 1 6 1 1 , i. e. appointed to be read in
Churches;" and he adds, "It is one of the best esta
blished and soundest maxims in law that for a usage
of this kind a legal origin is to be presumed when the
facts will admit of it3."

I cannot help myself believing that the expressed
intentions of the King at the Hampton Court Con
ference, his personal appointment of the Translators,
as officially intimated in his letter to the Archbishop
of Canterbury in the second year of his reign, were
assumed to cover the use of the words on the Title-

1 Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the Netv Testament, p. n.
- See further, an Article in Macmillan's Magazine for October
1 88 1, by the Rev. R. T. Davidson.

3 Vide Letter to the Bp of Lincoln. May 27, 1881.

56

page, although for reasons which have not come
down to us no steps were taken to give to those
intentions legal effect.

I will only say further that I consider it in
expedient on many accounts that we should be in
haste to use the New Version in the Public Worship
of the Church. In College Chapels I can imagine
the reading the New Version might be of much
educational advantage, and productive of no harm ;
but, on the other hand, the sudden adoption in
ordinary congregations, of what to some sensitive
minds would sound like a new Bible, and by many
ignorant persons would be so represented, would be
the cause of real annoyance, if not of deeper evil.

With what feelings then ought we to greet the
Version of the New Testament as it has been
recently laid on the Table of the Convocation of
Canterbury ? I cannot but think it should be with
thankfulness 'and hope. I am not, as you will sup
pose, about to enter into any criticism of the work;
but there are two or three facts which I would note
as grounds of thankfulness that the task was under
taken, and of hope that it may tend to the esta
blishment of Belief amongst us.

First I would observe that no new Translation is
set forth, but a Revision of that which has so long
warmed and educated the religious mind of England.
Let us hear the description of what has been done
by one of those engaged in the work. " The Autho
rized Version of the Holy Scriptures in English
first published in the year 1611 was placed by the

57

Convocation of Canterbury in the hands of two
companies of Revisers, one for the Old Testament,
and one for the New, in the year 1870. They were
to receive it not as a model for their imitation, but as
the subject-matter upon which they were to work,
endeavouring sparingly and reverently to amend it,
and adapting their corrections as much as possible
to its style, its diction, and its melody. From that
Version so laborious, so generally accurate, so close,
so abhorrent of paraphrase, so grave and weighty
in word and rhythm, so intimately bound up with
the religious convictions of the English people, we
have never lightly departed1." The Bishop of
Gloucester and Bristol, in presenting the Book to
the Upper House of Convocation, observed that the
Rules laid down for the guidance of those employed
in the Version of 1881 were substantially the same
as those enjoined upon their predecessors of 1611,
and had been conscientiously adhered to. We have
then no new English Bible now placed in our hands,
but a Version which links itself on to that which went
before, and through that to the still more ancient
Versions upon which that of 1611 was founded.
Thus the continuity of the Sacred Book, which
has counselled and warned and consoled so many
generations, is not broken. The Divine Voice will
still come unto us through the solemn avenue of the
Dead in Christ.

Secondly the Revision will, I trust, tend to the

1 A Word oil the Revised Version. By the Rev. W. G.
Humphry.

58

establishment of Belief by stopping one popular form
of attack. There has been prevalent for some time
past a vague impression amongst many that the
English Bible is full of errors, and does not represent
the true sense of Scripture. Plain Christian people
were disquieted with hearing of interpolated passages,
of corrupt readings, of inaccurate renderings. The
enemies of the Faith have not been slow to make
the most of these alleged defects. The theory of
mistranslation has been seized upon to cover a large
amount of unacknowledged scepticism in the -Reve
lation itself. These shadows are at any rate now
swept away. The English New Testament has been
submitted during ten years of patient labour to the
keenest scientific criticism of the learned not of one,
but of many nations. How close and searching the
review has been is proved by what is stated, that in
the Gospels eight changes, some very minute, in
every five verses ; in the Epistles 1 5 changes in as
many verses have been made upon an average1. The
English New Testament therefore stands before the
Church fresh from a sharp probation, and surely with
an augmented power to resist the gainsayer arising
out of the new attestation of its essential truthfulness.
For, thirdly, whilst the emendations have been
thus numerous, it may, I believe, be unreservedly
affirmed that no passages have been required by the
exactions of scholarship to be so changed as to shake
a single doctrine of the Faith or weaken the authority
of any usage of the Church. In some respects the very

1 Bp of Gloucester and Bristol's Speech in Convocation.

59

reverse has been the case. With how far sublimer
front stands forth the doctrine of our Blessed Lord's
Divinity, when for the somewhat dubious sentence,
" The Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," we
read in the Epistle to Titus the magnificent appella
tion, " Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."
And although we shrink with a childlike sensitiveness
from the slightest change in words so ineffably sacred
as those of the Lord's Prayer, and feel perhaps that
as a Prayer we must always pray it in the old loved
form, yet is it surely a remarkable fact, and one not
without its value, in an age whose tendency is more
and more to deny the reality of any spiritual world
lying beyond the confines of our own yet operating
upon it, that the necessities of scientific scholarship
should have forced an acknowledgement of the Per
sonality of Satan in demanding that in the Prayer
which is the Oratio Legitima, the very watchword
of the disciples of Christ, we should pray to be de
livered not only from the subtle influence of abstract
evil within us and about us, but from a Ghostly
Enemy, " the Evil One."

Lastly, may we not hope for a great revival of
interest in the study of Holy Scripture from the
publication of the Revised Version ? There is a
large class of clear-headed, reflective men amongst
our merchants and tradesmen who like to follow the
Lessons read in Church with their own Bibles, to
refer when they return home to passages of the
Sacred Text expounded in sermons, to satisfy them
selves as far as they can as to their true sense.

They are not Greek scholars. They are not there
fore qualified to consult the Greek original. To
such men the Revised Version, bearing on it the
impress of the latest and most consummate criticism,
not of one but of many minds, will be somewhat as
the original language would be to a Greek scholar1,
and I am inclined to think that the possession of
this New Version by which to test the Old will open
out to them a fresh vein of interest in the Book of
God.

Concluding Remarks.

I am conscious, Reverend Brethren, that I have
led you through subjects upon which many of you
who are gathered here may hold divergent opinions.
That such divergency exists in our Communion can
not be disguised, and we are sometimes told that
no danger threatens us save what may arise out of
our own divisions ; that our divisions provoke dis
establishment, and would prevent the Church if dis
established from holding together as one body. I
for my part entirely dissent from this view. It
appears to me to be the result of determinately look
ing away from that quarter of the sky in which the
tempest, if it impends, is really gathering. Different
schools of religious thought have always existed in
the Church of England as in other branches of the
Church Catholic. From time to time they find ex
pression in bitter disputings and intolerant action. It

1 I would here call attention to the Greek texts which have
been published by the two University Presses, and to the long
expected edition of Professors Westcott and Hort.

6i

has been so in our own day. But these things do not,
I am persuaded, constitute the real peril. I have
rather confidence that if the storm should break, the
outward warfare would in a measure still the inward
strife, for I cannot but thankfully recognize amongst
all the Religious Schools within our pale a true and
genuine love of our common Lord and Saviour,
and so much acknowledgement of the Oneness of
His Church, and filial attachment to our own branch
of it as would prevent, save it may be in the case
of a very few, any schism of the Body. No ; the
source of danger to the Church, whether considered
as a Church or an Establishment, arises, not from
controversies from within, but from that general
weakening of all Religious Faith which marks the
popular mind not only in this country but throughout
Europe. In our popular journals Scepticism claims
its position as an accepted phase of thought side
by side with the utterances of Belief, and no check
is attempted to be placed upon their indiscriminate
perusal by the youngest of either sex. We stand
face to face, it has been said, with a Materialistic
Atheism1. It is under this sinister influence that
the mighty union which began in the days of
Constantine, between the Civil and the Spiritual
Powers, between the Kingdoms of this world and
the Kingdoms not of this world, seems to be on
every side dissolving. How wonderful a structure
that union was — how solidly compacted may be
discovered in the very slowness with which amid the

1 Abp of Canterbury's Visitation Addresses. 1876. p. 28.

62

countless converging forces of the present age, the
work of its demolition proceeds. What may be the
future of the Kingdom of Christ when the web of
fifteen centuries' duration shall be wholly unravelled,
and the Church stands naked and alone as at the
beginning — God krioweth. It may be that the
completion of the divorce between the Temporal
Governments and Religious Creeds will be the
precursor of the end, or that beyond the antici
pations of the strongest faith a fresh outburst of
love and zeal may make the latter days like
the first— days perhaps of earthly trials, but
of spiritual triumphs. However this be, let us
not, Reverend Brethren, suffer our minds to be
diverted from the true source of danger. That
danger comes not from contests about the Faith,
but from the hostility which is developing to any
Faith at all. And we, the Clergy of the Church
of England, are, it seems to me, under peculiar
temptations to ignore both the reality of the peril
and its source. As ministers of a great historic
Church, whose roots strike back into the very
infancy of the nation, which has grown with the
nation's growth, which has become so identified with
its annals that it is difficult to conceive a prolongation
of the history of the Realm of England from which
the Church of England should disappear, we breathe
an atmosphere unfavourable, I must think, to seeing
present circumstances in their true proportions. It
becomes next to impossible to bring home to our
minds the conception that the old traditions which

63

hedge us round can in our days be rudely broken,
that a system which has stood so long can be
reserved to be cast down in our time. Again, a
certain courteous reticence is maintained in the
presence of a clergyman as to the abandonment of
religious belief. Although the reserve has dimin
ished to a remarkable extent within the last few
years, it still exists and contributes to dim our
perception of the degree to which Infidelity has sup
planted Faith in the world around us. And there
fore it is that I cannot close this Visitation without
seeking to impress upon you my own conviction that
we are summoned to fulfil our ministry in the near
presence of danger. I have no sympathy with the
feeling which forbids the very mention of the possible
insecurity of our existing Ecclesiastical institutions.
The Foundation of God, the Church of the Living
God, standeth sure — but very much that we love and
reverence, very much which helps us on our way has
no such inherent perpetuity, and we do not precipitate
what we dread by provoking one another to be pre
pared for it.

Do you ask, what is the practical lesson from
all this? I reply, first, that the idle, secular, self-
seeking ministry has no place in such a period as
this. Indefensible at all times, it is strangely out
of keeping at a time when all around us "they are
making ready for battle." Our Diocese is an agri
cultural Diocese, and, suffer me, Reverend Brethren,
to say that it is not so much in great towns where the
strivings of the age both for o-ood and evil are soonest

64

felt, but in the quiet country parish where the noise
of the conflicts of the day only reaches us from afar,
it is here the words of the Prophet, "Sound an alarm
in my holy mountain" have their most needful appli
cation.

So again it appears to me increasingly necessary
to bring out before our people the true character and
position of our Church, the duties and responsibilities
of Church membership.

Here also our immemorial tenure of the country,
although a great power on our side, has a tendency
to weaken. We are apt to take it for granted
that professing Churchmen will support the Church.
Hence we have not pressed on them this duty, and so
it has come to pass that members of the Church are
less forward than the members of other Religious
Bodies to prefer the interests of the Church to the
interests of local influence or political party. There
fore, I repeat, there is need of setting before our people
more plainly than has been our wont, the claims, the
dangers, the wants of the Church to which they
belong, not disguising what is amiss in it, nor shrink
ing from declaring its spiritual claims upon them.

So by God's grace may we do our part, each in
his own lot, to quicken into more vigorous life the
slumbering powers of the great Church of which we
are ministers, not for ourselves only, but for those
who come after, not for the conservation of temporal
privileges, but for the maintenance of the Faith once
for all delivered to the Saints.

A CHAKGE

DELIVERED AT THE VISITATION OF THE
CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ELY,

ON OCTOBER 17, 1881,
BEING ST ETHELDREDA'S DAY, FOUNDRESS' DAY.

REVEREND AND LAY BRETHREN, Members of this
Cathedral Church-
Having in 1877 revived the custom of visiting
the Cathedral in connection with the Visitation of
the Diocese as prescribed by the Canon Law, and
being enjoined by our own Cathedral Statutes1 to
visit once in three years, I have felt it my duty
to call you together to-day. I do not, however,
think it necessary to trouble you by exhibiting on
this occasion Articles of Inquiry, because the replies
to those exhibited in 1877 have placed on record
the general condition of the Cathedral at this time,
whilst the appointment of a Royal Commission to
investigate the state of Cathedrals generally renders

1 Cathedral Statutes, 33.
B. C. 5

66

it probable that before the termination of another
triennial period great and important changes may
be made which will afford larger material for Visi
tation Articles. We are at this moment in the
comparative repose of expectation. Three years
hence we may possibly be adjusting ourselves to a
new condition of things which will give more than
usual interest to the Visitation and to Articles of
Inquiry which may be found to register extensive
alterations in our constitution.

I have implied that few changes have occurred
since my last Visitation, and yet the citations to
which we have just listened remind us that the
greatest change of all has befallen more than one
member of our Body. The Senior of our Resi
dentiary Canons1 has passed away within the last
three years, after half a century's occupancy of his
stall. To him the Cathedral owes much for the
interest which he took in its restoration, and for his
munificent contributions to the work. With him
too is gone the last link between the Cathedral of
Ely in its days of neglect and of renewed beauty,
between the See of Ely as it now is and as it was in
the plenitude of its temporal jurisdiction over the
Isle2.

Besides this loss amongst the members of the
Chapter, two of our Minor Canons who in 1877
answered to their citation have been removed from

1 The Rev. Edward Bowyer Sparke, who died 1879.
8 The temporal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Ely terminated
with the death of Bishop Sparke in 1836.

6;

us1, nor may I omit to record the death of one of
our Subsacrists after a long and faithful service2.

I have said that we are passing through an
interval of expectation. In the meantime I am glad
to record that much of what I formerly expressed a
desire to see done, has been practically accomplished,
although not with the ratification of legal enact
ment.

(i) The Cathedral School has been reconstructed,
but (and to my mind this is of great importance) with
no loss of its identity. It remains still practically
under the government of the Chapter. The King's
Scholars preserve their honourable name and occupy
their wonted place in the Choir, and are cited here
to-day as members of the Foundation. The School is
still essentially a place of education according to the
principles of the Church of England. And I trust
that with the increased and improved provision for
boarding its scholars it may develope into a large and
important school for these Eastern Counties, and
be used more and more by the Clergy of the Diocese.
The education of their sons presses with increasing
weight upon the Parochial Clergy as the field of
education enlarges and therewith its costliness. Let
me add that I do not know any way in which we
may better help our less well-endowed brethren in
the sacred ministry, strengthening at the same time
an ancient Diocesan Institution, than by assisting to

1 The Rev. George Simey who died in 1881. The Rev. George
Hall who resigned through illness in 1880.

2 William Henry Southby who died in 1880.

68

maintain the sons of the Clergy at their own Cathe
dral School.

(2) A Theological College has arisen under the
shadow of these walls. Although not statutably
connected with the Cathedral, its Students form, I
venture to think, no unimportant part of its congre
gation both at the early Matins in St Katharine's

O •/

Chapel and at the services in the Choir. I look to
the maintenance of this connection between the
Theological College and the Cathedral as an object of
great moment. The Cathedral will always be the
home of many diverse kinds of learning and varying
shades of opinion. The preservation of close relations
between the Theological Students and the Cathedral
will I hope prove an effective means of avoiding
some of the evils which have been supposed to adhere
to Theological Colleges, arising out of their tendency
to fall under the absorbing influence of a single mind.

(3) The wish which I expressed in 1877 that
courses of Lectures might be delivered upon Church
History and kindred subjects has been fulfilled, and
I take this opportunity of tendering my sincere
thanks to the Dean and the Canons who have fol
lowed him in carrying out the scheme. The attendance
of Clergy and Laity at these Lectures has certainly
exceeded my own expectations, whilst one permanent
result has been the publication of two volumes of no
little interest. May I say here that it would not seem
to me to mar the usefulness of such Lectures if
diversities of opinion should be manifested in them.
Lectures delivered, not as part of a religious service,

69

are not to be regarded as sermons. They aim not at
the development of the spiritual life, but at the cul
ture of the intellectual faculties. Variety of thought,
differences in the way of looking at past events, ap
pear to me far more conducive to this than perfect
sameness of judgment. Such variety therefore I, for
my own part, would not wish away.

(4) We hold to-day the third annual meeting of
the Chapter with the Archdeacons and Honorary
Canons under my presidency "for the consideration
of matters connected with the welfare of the Diocese
more especially in its relations to the Cathedral." A
year ago I felt very strongly the advantage of being
able to advise with this Council upon the course to
be taken in putting into execution the provisions of
the New Burial Act. The Instructions which I
gave to the Clergy in a Pastoral Letter issued in
November last were set forth after consultation with
those members of the Cathedral Body, and were
certainly published by me with double confidence
from having first advised with them. This appears
to me to illustrate exactly the class of subjects upon
which a Bishop would desire before taking any step
to hear the opinions of such a Council of Presbyters.

(5) A representation was made in one of the
returns to my Visitation Inquiries in 1877, that it
was not of unusual occurrence that, owing to the
custom of the Bishop or Dean always taking prece
dence as celebrant in the Holy Communion, a Canon
might complete his residence without having once
performed the Act of Consecration in the Adminis-

;o

tration of the Lord's Supper. Since that time an
Early Communion has been added, which, amongst
other benefits, has wholly removed this difficulty,
and has moreover furnished opportunities for our
Minor Canons also to fulfil this part of the priest's
office. I cannot but think that this is of no small
importance. Everything is of extreme value which
widens the sphere of their ministry beyond the
singing daily Matins and Evensong. There is a
double sense of the familiar saying, "Laborare est
orare," — it is not only that Labour is Prayer, but
that Prayer without Labour must inevitably become
cold and lifeless. I should myself unfeignedly re
joice if other ministerial work should open to them,
provided always that it be of such a kind as not to
interfere with their presence in the Choir. This con
dition I consider to be most essential, and it at once
precludes the holding a curacy by a Minor Canon.
Our own ipth Statute appears to me to regard the
Minor Canons as a constituent part of the Choir, who
should assist, equally with the Lay -clerks, in the
singing the Anthems and Psalms. Their attend
ance, therefore, is needed even when it does not fall
to the lot of any one of them to take the Priest's
part in the Office. But whilst our object should be
to retain the Minor Canons as exclusively Ministers
of the Cathedral, having their interests and affec
tions centered in it alone, I see no reason why they
should not, whilst undertaking no responsibilities
which would come into collision with the duty of the
Choir, find even in such a comparatively small popu-

7'

lation as that of Ely many opportunities of parochial
work, such as visiting in a district, assisting in
Sunday Schools, conducting Bible and Communicant
classes, preparing candidates for Confirmation. This
would be a great assistance to the parochial clergy,
and would amply repay the Minor Canon himself,
in that it would save him from growing unfitted,
through the narrow cycle of his duties, for the post
of a parish priest, to which he may in all likelihood
be eventually called.

Reverend Brethren, I cannot meet you on this
our Foundress' Day without thankfully recording
my conviction that this ancient Foundation has,
during the last few years, advanced greatly in the
interest and affections of both the Clergy and Laity
of the Diocese. The continued assembling of the

O

Diocesan Conference in the South Transept, the
multiplied occasions on which the Parochial Clergy
have been invited to assist as Clergy in special
solemn services, the annual lectures given by the
Dean and Canons, their free hospitality at such
times, the preaching of the Dean and several of
the Canons in our larger towns, have contributed
to this good result. The first step towards it may
probably have been the great Festival at the i2Ooth
Anniversary of the Foundation. The interest then
awakened has I am thankful to know not been
suffered to die away.

And now let me turn in conclusion to those
members of our Body not in Holy Orders.

The Cathedrals of the New Foundation appear

72

to have been more especially designed to bear the
character of Colleges. It was the College perhaps
which to the men of that day best represented the
ancient monastery which had been recently abolished,
and which it was desired in some degree to replace.
The objects for which these Cathedral Colleges were
designed are thus stated in the Act of Parliament
establishing them, viz. " that God's word may be
better set forth, children brought up in learning,
clerks nourished in the Universities, that old ser
vants decayed may have living, almshouses for poor
folk sustained, Readers in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin
have good stipends, that daily alms may be adminis
tered, exhibitions provided for ministers of the
Gospel1."

It is observable how this our College gathers
into itself representatives of almost every section of
the Christian community — men of high intellect and
great acquirements and assured reputation amongst
the Clergy, together with some just entering on their
ministry ; laymen engaged in trade or business, but
with special musical attainments ; our King's scholars
pursuing a course of sound learning ; our choir-boys,
those children of the Church, in the old touching
phraseology, to whom God has vouchsafed a natural
gift for leading the praises of Israel ; aged men to
whom the sunset hour of life has come, and whose
chief remaining task should be, within these walls
warm with the prayers of centuries, to make ready
for the Master's call. One advantage of a Visitation

' 31 Henry VIII. cap. 9.

73

is that it gathers all these together and publicly
recognizes them as a Christian Brotherhood. To the
whole brotherhood then 1 speak my last words.

A famous writer who made a journey through
England in I7371 thus alludes to this Cathedral:
" The minster is a very noble pile, but, it is probable,
will not stand long, so much is it, and has been for
years past, neglected. Dr Sherlock (he goes on), the
Bishop of Salisbury, set a much better example than
has been followed here, obliging those who are most
concerned to maintain that which maintained them."
The prophecy has not, thank God, been fulfilled.
The reproach cast upon the guardians of Ely Cathe
dral has been nobly wiped out by the magnificent
restoration which we have lived to see. But we may
still learn a lesson from the words which speak of
" our maintaining the Institution which maintains
ourselves." The stability of our Cathedral Founda
tion depends not only upon that of the material
fabric. It depends also upon the fulfilment by each
of the duties belonging to his office. Every one of
you — the oldest bedesman, the youngest chorister-
may do his part towards preserving this great minster
and handing it on with its privileges intact, its daily
worship perpetuated, to future generations. It is
surely a gracious Providence which has collected us
together here to exercise our daily task beneath the
cloud of solemn memories which hangs about this
sacred place. Let us every one seek the honour of the

1 Drfoe's Tour through the whole Island.
H. 0. 6

32001° 74

great Church to which we belong. That honour, it
is mine — it is yours, by a sober, religious life, by a
conscientious use of the privileges here accorded, to
promote, or by evil living and wasted opportunities to
wound and to destroy.

I gratefully testify to the reverential demeanour
of the Lay-clerks and Choristers of this Cathedral.
As far as human eye can read there is little wanting —
yet, my brethren, I cannot but be aware from my
own experience that to go in and out daily before
the Holy One, to be continually reciting Psalms
and listening to the Divine Word, whilst it acts as a
preservative against disgraceful sins, whilst it stores
the memory with holy thoughts against the even-tide
when man goeth forth to his work and to his labour
no longer, has its own temptations — the temptation to
glide insensibly into a dull mechanical way of doing
all this without any true uplifting of the soul God-
ward. Against this be on your watch. You cannot,
I know well, keep ever the eye and the mind from
roaming — but you may resolve that they shall not be
licensed wanderers, by recalling them, when you
awake to the consciousness that they have strayed,
and by offering at the close your service in the Choir
with all its faults to Him Who is always more ready
to hear than we to pray.

CAiUiKlDGE I HUNTED HY 0. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UN1VEBSITY PEESS.

BX PHILLPOTTS

5034 A CHARGE DELIVERED
,P48 TO THE CLERGY OF THE

C48 DIOCESE OF EXETER

_02

6X

5034-

184-2,

: